Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences

Maybe not directly plain SIP but an API that abstract it so maybe in the
future it's being used XMPP instead (I've been working in this
server-agnostic issue), but definitely "SIP in the browser" (or equivalent)
as WebRTC spec defined signaling channel is not a bad idea... +1
El 22/07/2013 05:03, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com> escribió:

> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:41 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>
>>  On 21/07/2013 9:31 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>      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.
>>
>>
>>     In my original proposal, the implementation of the low-level API is
>> all about parsing the signaling layer. The high-level API never sees the
>> signaling layer and it definitely is not "SIP in the browser". I disagree
>> with exposing SIP anywhere, even in the lower-level API. If you want to use
>> SIP in the signaling implementation that's fine, but the object API should
>> not expose these implementation details to the outside world.
>>
>
> Yes, and as I said, the WG rejected this approach, just as it rejected the
> low-level API approach. My point was merely that "high-level", "mid-level",
> and "low-level" are terms that already have meaning in this WG. It would
> be useful if you used them in a fashion consistently with that meaning.
> If you have a proposal that doesn't fit into that taxonomy, then I suggest
> you use a new name, rather than confusing reusing an old one.
>
>         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 consider that a non-answer. I have pointed you to a specific
>> document that shows that the majority of Web Developers are against the
>> current API proposal, complete with a list of names and why they are
>> against the proposal. It's not reasonable to ask me to wade through months'
>> worth of email archives.
>>
>
> I didn't ask you to do anything. You asked me a question, I told you how
> to find
> the answer. If you don't feel like doing it, it's hard to see why I should
> do it
> for you.
>
> -Ekr
>
>