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

Re: Material for discussing scoping for version one

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:36:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNb3R22yerTdhNZOr9zjLDa=gYTLQmY90S-ABV5Hcvetg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hmm... I feel like this is a little fixated on timeline. I would rather
ask what's needed to have something that's viable.

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 19:37:14 UTC

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