- From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:57:28 +1000
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Fair enough...life is full of compromise 8) roBman On 23/07/13 01:04, Peter Thatcher wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com > <mailto:roBman@mob-labs.com>> wrote: > > On the topic of the gdocs survey that Peter T setup...for my > feedback I've tried to use little more positive language e.g. not > "strongly dislike" - but instead "strongly like a change" 8) > > I'm actually really impressed with and enthusiastic about what has > been achieved for WebRTC so far. > > Yet I also think there's a compelling case for making a change now > before 1.0 is finalised that will make WebRTC significantly better > (less fragile and more extensible). > > I think the issues laid out in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/__draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-__js-obj-api-rationale-00 > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-js-obj-api-rationale-00> > are very clear and well thought out. > > Also, in the gdocs survey I think the "OK/Good for simple things" > question is a bit misleading. > > Firstly, "OK" and "Good" really are two separate things. > > > Yes, I originally had two separate buckets, but that ended up with too > many buckets, so I merged them. Basically, I found that distilling all > that feedback into a readable summary was hard :). Some precision was > lost in the simplification. > > > Secondly, this initially led me to think about just a basic video > call and I answered "yes". But when you think about "mute" or "on > hold", etc. which are pretty simple things too then the answer > clearly has to be no. > > I also think how this all relates to the whole RTCDataChannel model > is important. Both for channel setup and for the ability to use > RTCDataChannels for signaling and how that relates to both SDP and O/A. > > Just a few thoughts. > > roBman > > > > On 21/07/13 17:51, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > > On 7/21/13 8:28 AM, Rob Manson wrote: > > Thanks Stefan. > > Yep...will do. > > > I can see your input now, thanks! > > > roBman > > > On 21/07/13 15:46, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > > Rob, > > Peter T has a spreadsheet at > https://docs.google.com/__spreadsheet/ccc?key=__0AuaKXw3SkHMSdHlZdV9RN0xSWFhyb__Vl4anJLRkVPV0E#gid=1 > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuaKXw3SkHMSdHlZdV9RN0xSWFhybVl4anJLRkVPV0E#gid=1> > collecting the experiences made when using the WebRTC > APIs. Could you > enter what you have learned? The more people that > contribute the better. > > Stefan > > On 7/21/13 1:08 AM, Rob Manson wrote: > > +1 > > As a web developer that's spent a lot of time > experimenting with the > currently specified version of the WebRTC related > APIs and that's been > following the mailing list debates closely this > really does seem like > the best resolution. > > It provides a more extensible and flexible > architecture that can evolve > at "web developer speed" not "aligned browser > release speed". And at > this speed it will also be less fragile. > > It provides a clear separation of concerns so people > can use SDP where > they want, but not everyone is restricted by the > timelines of other WGs > that are required to evolve SDP. > > And it would enable even more experimentation and > future facing > development too. > > > Also, in terms of timing I think getting this right > is more important > than the current commitment to a deadline. > > This is from the perspective of a web developer that > has gone to all the > effort of just finishing a book on "Getting started > with WebRTC" using > the existing API and who is also working on several > commercial projects > based on the current API. > > So if anyone should be promoting "just get the first > version out" then > it should be someone in my position. But I think you > really will find > that most web developers would rather we got this > abstraction right > first so we can avoid all of the extra support > issues and application > re-work that will be required down the track if we > don't. > > roBman > > > On 20/07/13 23:51, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: > > Let W3C experts to define a good JS API for > WebRTC (with no SDP), let > MMUSIC WG to define a SDP format for WebRTC, and > then let JavaScript SIP > experts to build JS libraries on top of it to > play the SDP game, and we > all will be happy. And telcos will be much more > happy than they think. > Let's get rid of all the SDP O/A stuff in the > browser. The browser is > not a phone and "fixed logic + fixed code" does > not work here. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 21:57:55 UTC