- From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:22:18 +0200
- To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 09/06/2012 10:33 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I tried to make this point on the IRC channel of the last call, but > clearly it must be made again. > > There is nothing in my reading of the use cases that makes the > "browser-to-browser" use case *any more or less important than the > other use cases*. You're right, there is no such distinction in the use-case document. When writing what you quote below ("the main target for this work is the browser-browser case.") I had the charters of the IETF rtcweb and this (webrtc) WG in mind. The part "I think it is OK if the descriptions must be manipulated for interop (with non-browser end-points) cases" is of course just my personal opinion which I hope was made clear from the part "I think". Stefan > > Just because we can come up with something with an SDP-like API that > follows SDP Offer/Answer-like semantics and has ICE-like NAT > traversal and DTLS-SRTP-like security does not in fact mean that we > will support any of the other (not "browser-to-browser") use cases. > In fact, supporting these cases will become particularly difficult if > the SDP diverges, the O/A semantics diverge (as they have already), > or the ICE implementation does not have the flexibility to > interoperate with pre-final ICE implementations and/or lightweight > consent-only gateways. This is precisely what the Microsoft document > is talking about when we raise concerns about interoperability. Never > mind, of course, that it will take several iterations just to get the > SDP actually compatible between two vendor's browsers, if history is > any guide. > > If you can point me to a specific reference that "the main target for > this work is the browser-browser case", please do so. Otherwise, I > suggest that we work on specifications that make it as easy as > possible to implement *all* of the use cases, rather than do what the > current specification does which is to make browser-to-browser cases > easier *at the expense of* the other use cases. > > Matthew Kaufman > > -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Hakansson LK > [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, September > 06, 2012 11:17 AM To: public-webrtc@w3.org Subject: Re: Poll for > preferred API alternative > > ... I think it is OK if the descriptions must be manipulated for > interop (with non-browser end-points) cases; after all, the main > target for this work is the browser-browser case. ... > >
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 06:22:46 UTC