Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:23 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  On 21/07/2013 8:40 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>     What does "SIP in the browser" mean? I assume you don't mean literally.
>

No, I mean it literally. Minimally, the JS would have no meaningful
visibility into the signaling messages (i.e., the JS would just request
that the messages be transmitted) and maximally you would
actually send messages via SIP.



> 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?
>

It's in the W3C email archives, meeting minutes, etc.



>      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=1and 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.
>

That's not anything like clear. There have been a large number of
posts from a relatively small number of people, but that doesn't
make it consensus.

-Ekr