- From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:56:48 -0400
- To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I believe the proposals are largely equivalent in functionality. Although I have a moderate preference for the calling approach that Cullen's integration proposal uses, I could live with either one. I would like for the authors of the proposals (Cullen, Adam, and Justin) to work together to develop a joint proposal. -- dan On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > I'd like to discuss this topic at the next phone call - I don't think the issue is choosing one. I think the issue is discussing what we like about both and seeing if we can find a way to have our cake and eat it too. > > > On Mar 20, 2012, at 17:15 , Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >> List, >> >> we now have two member contributions suggesting changes to the PeerConnection API in order to align with the JSEP direction suggested in the IETF: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Mar/0049.html (from Adam) >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Mar/0064.html (from Cullen) >> >> In order to make quick progress, the chairs aim to call for the incorporation of one of these in the core document as soon as consensus is detected in the WG; if it's not obvious before what the >> consensus is, the chairs aim to make a call one way or the other based on the list traffic up to ca March 30 (this is just after the IETF meeting, so people taking the opportunity for face-to-face discussion can report on those discussions here). >> >> All list members who have reviewed both documents are encouraged to >> state their opinion on the list. >> >> Harald and Stefan >> > >
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 07:57:13 UTC