W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Update of "Sorting issues into categories"

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 19:58:59 +0200
Message-ID: <506C7CE3.7020209@ericsson.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 10/03/2012 07:40 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> Once again, I have mentioned my concern for the shortcomings of the
> current API in
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0102.htm<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0102.html>
> It looks like some additional API surface is needed to address my
> concerns (
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0109.html ).
>
> I am not sure why this is being ignored...

Roman, sorry, there was no intention what so ever to ignore you.

The issues in the list I sent out were those brought up by Matthew and 
Martin in the discussion of API alternatives.

Personally I agree to your input, and think we need some more API 
surface; and I also think the proposal you reference would be a 
reasonable way to add that surface.

However, there has been very little discussion about that proposal so 
far. Hopefully we will come around to discuss this aspect soon.

Br,
Stefan

> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     For the record. This is a minor update of the mail titled "Sorting
>     possible technical issues into categories"
>     (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/__0142.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0142.html>).
>
>     * The issues in categories "Being addressed" and "Needs to be
>     addressed" now all have ACTIONs associated with them.
>
>     * The issues in category "Needs to be more clearly described" now
>     have descriptions (I link to Martin's mail). However, this in most
>     cases moves them into the "Needs further discussion" category (one
>     exception).
>
>     To make it a bit easier to see what has been added, all new lines
>     start by "--"
>
>     Stefan
>     ------------------------------__------------------------------__-----------
>
>     *Will not do*
>     -------------
>     - *Remove SDP*: the poll was clear
>
>     *Not a question for this WG*
>     ----------------------------
>     - *H.264 SVC support*: IETF matter
>
>     - *Testing of continued connection liveness*: IETF matter
>
>     - *Interoperability with varying ICE and ICE-like agents*: IETF matter
>
>     *Being addressed*
>     -----------------
>     - *Learn what ICE candidates are in use*: this is part of the proposed
>     stats report
>     -- ACTION-12 and ACTION-54
>
>     - *Pausing and muting of streams*: there is already enable/disable on
>     tracks available [3], and there has recently been a proposal to move
>     this functionality to the consumer (e.g. PeerConnection) [2].
>     -- ACTION-57
>
>     - *Expose additional ICE state:*, *Remove offer/answer*,
>     *Description of state/behavior is currently incomplete*, *Document
>     how the different
>     state machines interact*: The discussion of states for PeerConnection,
>     including SDP exchanges, is ongoing
>     -- ACTION-51
>
>     - *Are MediaStreams mutable objects?*: According to [3] they are (but
>     there is a recent proposal that a MediaStream being received from a
>     peer shall not be mutable [4])
>     -- ACTION-58
>
>     *Needs to be addressed*
>     ----------------------
>     - *Rollback of offers*
>     -- ACTION-55
>
>     - *Provide congestion feedback API for flows*, *Bandwidth allocation*,
>     *Bandwidth estimation feedback* (there is a bug filed related to this
>     [5]; [4] proposed an API surface that might suitable; BW allocation is
>     perhaps mostly and IETF matter)
>     -- ACTION-56
>
>     *Needs further discussion*
>     --------------------------
>     - *DTMF onTone event*: unclear if there is consensus for supporting
>     this feature, is currently not covered by use-case document [6])
>
>     - *Set Security Description*: need the discussion in IETF to
>     finalize first
>
>     - *Learning of network change events*: need to discuss the role of app
>     and the role of the UA
>
>     - *Priority allocation*: need further discussion
>
>     - *API for discovering capabilities* (this has to some extent been
>     discussed in the Media Capture TF)
>
>     *Needs to be more clearly described*
>     ------------------------------__------
>     - *Control connection establishment based on certificate*
>     -- Described in [8]
>     -- Spawned "related identity issues" (see [8])
>     -- Needs further discussion
>
>     - *Split SDP between PeerConnection and MediaStream*
>     -- Described in [8]
>     -- Needs further discussion
>
>     - *Serialization of duplicated tracks*
>     -- Described in [8]
>     -- Proposed to consider this issue not relevant
>
>     - *Programmatic description of described streams*
>     -- Described in [8]
>     -- Needs further discussion
>
>     [1]
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-webrtc/2012Aug/__0194.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Aug/0194.html>
>     [2]
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-media-capture/__2012Aug/0029.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Aug/0029.html>
>
>     [3] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/__editor/getusermedia.html
>     <http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html>
>
>     [4]
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/__0025.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0025.html>
>
>     [5] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/__Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861
>     <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861>
>     [6]
>     http://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-__cases-and-requirements/
>     <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements/>
>     [7]
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/__0098.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0098.html>
>     [8]
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/__0146.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0146.html>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 17:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:30 UTC