Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <
matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

>  Could you explain the reasoning behind moving the API discussion to the
> W3C list while leaving the actual API specification documents as Internet
> Drafts created and edited by the IETF WG?****
>
> **
>

The discussion did not seem to be focused on the workings of the wire
protocols like RTP but on whether API calls like RTCSdpType,
RTCSessionDescription,
etc. were the right way for JS applications to interact with the browser.
Those are in the W3C spec.

We could have made other decisions, obviously, but the first order of
business was to pick one to get the discussion in one place.

Hope that informs,

Ted

 **
>
> I’m all for moving the API work (back) to W3C, but we should move all of
> it, don’t you think?****
>
> ** **
>
> Matthew Kaufman****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ted Hardie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:33 AM
> *To:* rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
> *Subject:* [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion****
>
> ** **
>
> Howdy,
>
> The recent set of API discussions has been spread across both the rtcweb
> and public-webrtc mailing lists.  That's making it both harder to follow
> and harder for folks to work out who is saying what under which rules.  The
> chairs of both groups believe that the right place for the discussion to
> continue should be public-webrtc.  Please direct follow-ups on this topic
> to that list.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie****
>