W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Material for discussing scoping for version one

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:19:32 +0000
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C428018@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 16/12/13 19:04, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2013 04:56 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
>>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>>> <WebRTC 1.0 In%2FOut - W3C.pdf>
>>> This list might be ok as the start of TODO list of things we still need to
>>> resolve but the idea that default decision is "Ignore unknown mandatory
>>> constraints" is something that we could decide if we we do it now or later
>>> makes no sense. That is something we need to decide before we get the 1.0
>>> spec out.
>> Agreed. If you look carefully in the "proposed decision" column, that
>> particular row has "no" as the proposed decision.
>> In general, the proposed decisions are "Yes" (do it before LC), "Not in 1.0"
>> (we may or may not do it later) and "No" (we won't do it, and recommend that
>> the question not be revisited either).
> Are the contents of this column actually the chair's proposal for what
> we should do? Just a placeholder? I worked on this document, but
> they're certainly don't match my opinion.

See it as a signal that we should be careful with what we say should be 
included in 1.0 to be able to get done in a reasonable time. It does not 
reflect my wish either (I have a few things I'd really like to see), but 
I guess we will all need to compromise.

>>> Given most these things will need many minutes of discussion to even
>>> understand what they are, and that we one hour total, how do you plan to run
>>> the meeting? Let me make this much cripser, as chair, can you sort out a
>>> list of items you think are the right ones to consider for removal in the
>>> 1.0 spec?

We shipped the list as soon as it was available to us just to let 
everyone see it ASAP. We will look into sorting it (that is a good idea 
I think) in the coming couple of days.

>> We start out with this list. Then we remove things from it.
> I'm not really following this.
> -Ekr
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 19:20:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:37 UTC