- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:36:07 -0800
- 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. -Ekr
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 19:37:14 UTC