On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:25 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > On 21/07/2013 7:27 PM, Roman Shpount wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:20 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > >> >> I think we both agree that we need a low-level API needs to be >> driven by the capabilities exposed by the signaling layer (not high-level >> use-cases). I think we both agree that we need a high-level API needs to be >> driven by typical Web Developer use-cases. So what are we disagreeing on >> here? >> >> > We do not know what those use cases are. At least not yet. So, let's > give developers access to everything and they will develop easy to use > libraries for the use cases they need. > > > So you're advocating that we only standardize a low-level API and > leave it up to the community to publish competing high-level APIs? That's a > valid option. I'd support this approach if you get community consensus that > we're not going to standardize the high-level API. > I think it might be helpful if we agree on terminology here. Generally, we've talked about three kinds of APIs: High-Level: Effectively SIP in the browser Mid-Level: What we have now Low-Level: Something in the vein of CU-RTC-Web We've seen proposals for all of these and I think there was rough consensus to do a mid-level API and in particular JSEP (and incidentally not to do a low-level API). To my knowledge, there has never been any kind of consensus call not to do a Mid-Level API, and it would represent a major shift in WG direction. -Ekr
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 00:41:17 UTC