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

Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

From: Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:28:50 -0400
Message-ID: <51D71062.9000406@hookflash.com>
To: Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>
CC: "'public-webrtc_w3.org'" <public-webrtc@w3.org>

No, I would like to make a proper modularized API that is useful for 
_everyone_ and not for just _me_.

I'm NOT the only one having troubles. Even SIP developers are lining up 
against this API, and they are using a "standard" by your definition. 
Here's some of the feedback from people actually trying to use this API:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuaKXw3SkHMSdHlZdV9RN0xSWFhybVl4anJLRkVPV0E#gid=0

I'd like to propose an API that specifically doesn't needlessly push a 
monolithic SDP know-everything about the transports, connections, state, 
constraints and streams embedded in an obtuse format all bundled into 
one blob that is not compatible with of the previous standards for 
existing standard networks, and stop a needless and intrusive offer / 
answer state machine that doesn't need to exist for an this kind of an API.

As an aside, and as far as I know, two of the four major browser vendors 
do not support this one WebRTC API. We are far away from having the 
promised universal access for everyone that WebRTC promised.

-Robin


> Martin Steinmann <mailto:martin@ezuce.com>
> 5 July, 2013 2:13 PM
>
> >*From:*Robin Raymond [mailto:robin@hookflash.com]
> *>Sent:* Friday, July 05, 2013 1:50 PM
> *>To:* Martin Steinmann
> *>Cc:* 'public-webrtc_w3.org'
> *>Subject:* Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser 
> Implementers
>
> >
>
> >
> >Right, the current API is ill suited to support leading edge 
> protocols. I 100% agree with you. That's why I'm proposing an 
> alternative that allows for >today's protocols but doesn't prohibit 
> the future from happening too.
>
> OK, so you would like to add a new use case that is important to you, 
> but not (yet) to most others.  If stated as such I would agree that 
> this should be a basis for a discussion, provided it does not 
> completely derail the existing process and timeline for the rest of us.
>
> --martin
>
>
> >
> >And even though I didn't bring up the topic because I explicitly try 
> not to promote on these forums, Open Peer is "open". It's not official 
> "standards >track" via an official "standards body" but a open project 
> like many other open projects. As a reminder, XMPP did not start out 
> in the standards >track either when it first came out. Not every 
> standard has its origins being designed by a committee before being 
> crowned a "standard".
> >
> >-Robin
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 18:29:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:34 UTC