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

Re: Material for discussing scoping for version one

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:34:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3=X8e47xX7YGY92gUWPKXaf-j_WuqvZioXTBRiU+rR7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
This is the list of things we have talked about recently as work that still
needs to be done. Nobody has yet taken any position (in this document) as
to what the fate of each of these things should be; as Stefan stated
earlier, the "Not in 1.0" is just a placeholder (although it is alarming at
first glance).

Everything should be fair game to discuss whether it should get into 1.0.
Mind you, this is the 1.0 API; some things may not be easily expressible in
this API, which can be rectified in the next API version.

I have included your suggestions into the doc from which this list was
generated and added you to said doc.


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com
> wrote:

>
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> 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 HÃ¥kansson 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.
>
> I've never seen this list before and very curios who was working on it but
> either way,  same as EKR I don't understand. Is this the chairs proposal on
> what we should do ? Or is this what they chairs claim there is consensus to
> do?  Would you add the items I sent to the agenda call as things to discuss?
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 23:35:06 UTC

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