- From: ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ <tommyw@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:00:49 +0200
- To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALLKCfN1fMQU1gHOmYUf_wuBnzYiaX9=XF3fgJA4gEfTTRHX6A@mail.gmail.com>
My definite vote is on alternative 1. Alternative 2 completely misses the user base, a normal web developer without expertise in video conferencing will have a very hard time getting something working. We need to provide a pretty big, but high-quality and light, showel because it is a big hole that has to be dug. I do see the value in having a low-level api but now is not the right time to discuss one. I might be partial since I am implementing PeerConnection right now in WebKit but I am also a big fan of the WebRTC concept and would be very sad if the specification completely misses its target. The PeerConnection is not perfect and I definitely don't agree with everything but, and it's a big but, it does its job well. /Tommy On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Stefan Hakansson LK < stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > The discussions of Aug 28 showed that there are people with differing > opinions on the structure of the API this WG should design. > > Most of the work in front of this group currently is dependent on a basic > decision between those two approaches - the issues to be resolved (for > example congestion control and RTP stream mapping) are in many cases > present in both proposals, but the API specifications that need to be > developed look a lot different. > > > It is not efficient use of the group’s time to work out detailed, > implementable proposals that then are thrown away because of a later > decision - nor is it a working environment conducive to inspiring > volunteers. > > The two alternatives, as the chairs see them, are the following: > > 1) Continue with a design based on the PeerConnection object, using SDP as > part of the API, roughly in the style of the current API description. > 2) Remove the PeerConnection object and all use of SDP from the API, and > pursue an API roughly in the style of Microsoft’s CU-WebRTC proposal. > > In order to make this call, we’re calling for the WG participants to make > their opinion known, by indicating one of three alternative opinions: > > 1) The group should continue with a design based on the PeerConnection > object, using SDP as part of the API. > 2) The group should remove the PeerConnection and all use of SDP from the > API, and pursue a design based on the CU-WebRTC proposal. > 3) This participant does not have enough information to state an opinion > at this time. > > The chairs will make the result of the opinion tally public after the end > date. > > If this call results in a clear preponderance for one of the alternatives, > the WG chairs will take that as direction - if the last alternative has a > clear preponderance, the WG chairs will direct the WG pursue further > discussion of this topic only, putting all other work on hold until this is > resolved; in the two other cases, the chairs will direct the WG pursue the > chosen design option, and leave the other to others to follow up if they > wish, but not drive it further in the WG. > > This is not a vote - it is a tallying of opinions. If a preponderance of > preference is clear, the chairs will ask the WG if it agrees that a > consensus exists to proceed based on that preference. > > Please state your opinion before Friday, Sept 7, and communicate this to > the chairs. Mail to the list is an acceptable means of communicating your > opinion. > > Stefan for the chairs > > -- Tommy Widenflycht | Senior Software Engineer | tommyw@google.com | +46 734162531 Google Sweden AB, Kungsbron 2, SE-11122 Stockholm, Sweden Org. nr. 556656-6880
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 14:01:28 UTC