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

RE: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

From: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:35:35 +0000
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484213E4030@TK5EX14MBXC265.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>


From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com] 
	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

It doesn't.
The moment someone says "well, for 1.0 we don't want to move away from SDP O/A as the API surface", they just brought us right back to having half the discussion in one place and half in the other. If and when W3C wants to do a LC on this specification, the document, including its chain of normative references, must be sufficient for another browser vendor to create an interoperable implementation... The W3C WG isn't doing its job here with ensuring that such a document will ever be produced *at the W3C* which is where it must happen. (This was true even before noting that in the last year the IETF has failed to converge on solutions to almost any of the SDP issues that are raised by using it as a browser API.)

Matthew Kaufman
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 21:37:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:35 UTC