- From: Frode Kileng <frodek@tele.no>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:42:51 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
I support alternative 1. Don't leave to much complexity in the hands of a the JS coders. And we don't need any more delays. Regards frodek Den 29.08.2012 14:30, skrev Stefan Hakansson LK: > 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 >
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 07:31:53 UTC