W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Proposal: Different specifications for different target audiences

From: <piranna@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:17:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh1LJQ28GKytK4GRkt6P8FRv-1xZ5P5=uLrajV0kGj31Bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
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
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 03:17:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:49 UTC