RE: Goals of this work (Re: Poll for preferred API alternative)

Yes, I believe that *all* of the use cases presented in the use case document (and any new ones that we come up with) should be addressed by the W3C API and IETF protocols with equal priority. So that, for instance, a solution which is slightly hard for browser-to-browser and equally hard for browser-to-PSTN would be preferred over one that is slightly easier for browser-to-browser and extremely difficult for browser-to-PSTN.

This is why I have raised objection to comments like "we'll never need to modify the SDP anyway because that isn't needed for browser-to-browser cases, and so it doesn't matter how difficult that might be".

Matthew Kaufman

-----Original Message-----
From: Göran Eriksson AP [mailto:goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:50 PM
To: Matthew Kaufman
Cc: Harald Alvestrand; public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Goals of this work (Re: Poll for preferred API alternative)



6 sep 2012 kl. 23:37 skrev "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>:

> This of course is NOT reflected in the use case document, which prioritizes all use cases, including PSTN interworking and other legacy software interworking equally, as I believe they should be.

That the main focus has been on securing inivation on tve webplatform, that is between interoperable browsers, has never been in doubt in my eyes (as one of the editors)- the interworking use cases are there as part of the ambition to make interworking usage as steamlined as possible, but not at the expense of the solution for browser to browser usage.

Do I understand it right that U are of another opinion namely that for instance telephony network interworking use cases are as important for tve work in w3c and ietf?

Thanks
Göran

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 22:13:54 UTC