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

Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:17:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMC9_twdLpGoVfEGGhSGf1BsqW0xymD+5v-QB9x37qphjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
Cc: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
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?****
>
> ** **
>
> Iím all for moving the API work (back) to W3C, but we should move all of
> it, donít 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
>
>


compose-unknown-contact.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: compose-unknown-contact.jpg)

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 20:17:38 UTC

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