- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:39:53 -0400
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51E5AF99.8020504@bbs.darktech.org>
On 16/07/2013 4:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:05 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org > <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > I assume you are referring to > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11 > > I see the following problems with this document: > > 1. Section 4 states: "It is assumed that the user applications > are executed on a browser". This assertion flies in the face > of many of our use-cases. > 2. Without API examples, there is no feedback mechanism of how > good/bad the API fits our use-cases. Recent conversations > highlight why need such a mechanism. > 3. The document fails to explain the reasoning behind the design > decisions that were made. > > Don't get me wrong: this is a good start. But this document is > to a Design Document what voting is to Democracy. It is just the > tip of the iceberg. We can, and should, do a lot more. > > > Send text. > > -Ekr > To what end? I'd be more than happy to contribute if the WG agrees to publish the Design Document I previously described. If they have no such plans, I'd like to know what process they advocate for turning those use-cases into an API, and what feedback mechanism will ensure that the API is acceptable before being published. Thanks, Gili
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 20:40:27 UTC