Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences

On 21/07/2013 8:40 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:25 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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

     What does "SIP in the browser" mean? I assume you don't mean literally.

> 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.

     Were Web Developers well-represented when this was first discussed? 
Do you have a breakdown of who voted in favor or against?

     I agree that this represents a major shift in the WG direction, but 
if you read 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuaKXw3SkHMSdHlZdV9RN0xSWFhybVl4anJLRkVPV0E#gid=1 
and the mailing list discussions over the past 2 months it's pretty 
clear that the vast majority of the community is in favor of a change.

     The central premise behind my original proposal is that Browser 
Vendors, Integrators and Web Developers are best equipped to define an 
API for their own use-cases, but not for each other, and that is what is 
going on here.

Gili