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: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:00:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmcfZjph=_hWwCY_biS5sOaM4doEAdsY9SxnH4KP_254A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
2013/7/20 Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>:
> I have been on this list for a long time, likely like many others who are wondering what is going on.
>
> Does anyone really expect Google and Mozilla to change their implementation just because some other companies want to build, for the most part, proprietary peer-to-peer systems?  To transform the multi-billion dollar telecoms industry into a Web economy you need legacy interop and a consistent and simple (high-level) API that facilitates interoperability.  From an economic perspective this is very simple.
>
> Elevating this discussion from a pure technical argument and into the real world would require those who say they represent browser vendors to actually state what standard these browsers would support and by when and how these standards would facilitate interop.  Are the IE, Lync, and Skype teams all on the same page?  Such a commitment would make a real difference and resonate with the industry at large.
>
> What we the users and developers of apps really need is consensus and commitment for browser support, desktop and mobile.  I have seen the Skype team propose CU-RTC-Web, but would IE support it? How about Lync?  And would Microsoft support the industry making the implementation available in open source and with a royalty free patent grant?  What is the argument to convince Google and Mozilla to re-implement?  Without thinking this through the best API proposal is pretty useless and the argument mainly academic.
>
> The current draft spec is very nicely setup to meet the larger objectives towards broad adoption.  To counter that will require an all-encompassing proposal and committment and not just another technical spec thrown into the ring.


Do not take me wrong, but this is the most useless and wrong mail I've
read in this mail list.

> Does anyone really expect Google and Mozilla to change their implementation just because some other companies want to build, for the most part, proprietary peer-to-peer systems?

What do you mean with "proprietary peer-to-peer systems"??? Do you
really know what you are speaking about?


> To transform the multi-billion dollar telecoms industry into a Web economy you need legacy interop

What???
Do you think that "legacy interop" is just feasible by mandating SDP
O/A in WebRTC? Have you really read the rationale exposed in this
draft?:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-js-obj-api-rationale-00


> The current draft spec is very nicely setup to meet the larger objectives towards broad adoption.  To counter that will require an all-encompassing proposal and committment and not just another technical spec thrown into the ring.

Thanks for your comment. This is the best example of the kind of
vision and businnes-interest by which we are where we are. I
appreciate your honesty.


--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 14:01:35 UTC

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