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

Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

From: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:47:36 +0200
Message-Id: <2B681B99-117B-4083-9BB3-90FA372650D5@zingaya.com>
Cc: Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
I have tried to play with CU-RTCWEB demos MSFT put online. I don't know any web developer who can use that, while I know a lot of folks who already building services using current WebRTC implementation in Chrome and Firefox.

As I see that - there are a lot of people working on the standard, and there are a lot of other people arguing all time since the standard doesn't work for their particular use case. There is no way to create something that will work for everybody, if you need specific problems to be addressed you need to explain your use case to WG and ask them to consider it.


On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:06, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

> Martin Steinmann [mailto:martin@ezuce.com] :
>    The aggressiveness of argument on this list is perplexing.  In every collaborative effort you have to respect and build on what already exists.  If you violate this basic rule, you loose legitimacy to participate.  If I remember correctly there was a vote on this subject some time ago and I don't think it is the chairs being inflexible.  All they are trying to do is prevent total chaos and I applaude them for that.  Keep up the good work.
> 1. The aggressiveness is a reaction to certain individuals, including chairs, who appear to be entirely unwilling to listen to even unaligned third-party developers who have found major problems with the existing specification.
> 2. There is a whole lot of "building on what already exists" in all of the proposals, even the CU-RTCWEB proposal, which builds on GetUserMedia and SRTP and all sorts of good things.
> 3. There wasn't a vote. There was a poll, and a decision made 9-10 months ago before we had input from other third party developers and before we saw just how long it would take to get even minor changes to SDP through the multitude of interested working groups at IETF (MMUSIC, CLUE, perhaps AVTEXT, RMCAT, and others). Now we have this information, and working prototypes of alternatives, and a handful of influential people with their fingers in their ears shouting I'M NOT LISTENING and I CAN'T HEAR YOU UNTIL THE 1.0 SPEC IS FINISHED. Even though some of the input they are getting is explanation of why the "1.0 spec" A) won't be finished nearly as soon as was originally projected (that's easy to prove, as that date has already passed) and B) doesn't meet the actual needs of real developers.
> There is a tendency for the first phase of "NAH NAH I'M NOT LISTENING" to be met with even louder argument from the other side. I suppose you're hoping that side gives up soon and goes somewhere else?
> Matthew Kaufman
Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 07:48:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:49 UTC