- From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:17:11 -0700
- To: Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
- Cc: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+9kkMC9_twdLpGoVfEGGhSGf1BsqW0xymD+5v-QB9x37qphjg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com> wrote: > > Agreed, and in addition, is SDP with offer / answer a mandated surface API > by the RTCWEB WG or the W3C? (i.e. a mandate that some use cases are only > solvable with touching the SDP, and web developer must know about > offer/answer in the process) > > If so, which group is mandating that requirement be part of the web > developer's API? > \ > The interface between the javascript application and the browser is described in the W3C spec; the editors' draft section on session description, for example, is here: http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#session-description-model regards, Ted Hardie > This helps define which group is appropriate to address those kinds of > concerns. > > -Robin > > > Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> > 9 July, 2013 2:04 PM > > 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?**** > > ** ** > > 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<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**** > _______________________________________________ > > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> > 9 July, 2013 11:33 AM > 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 > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > >
Attachments
- image/jpeg attachment: compose-unknown-contact.jpg
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 20:17:38 UTC