Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API

On 23/07/2013 9:14 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:03 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 23/07/2013 7:45 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>     Cisco strongly believes that the top priority of this WG should be to finish a usable specification as soon as possible.  At the recent WebRTC Expo plenary session, we asked developers what they needed changed in current specs and almost no comments were received in a room of several hundreds people - representing close to a hundred companies - that are primarily focused on developing and deploying services using WebRTC. When I asked companies privately between sessions, the number one requirement I heard was to get the spec stabilized and shipping.
>>
>>     Right now we have an API that meets many needs and is getting close to completion. Cisco's position is that the scope of the WG should not be expanded until the current 1.0 work is complete. After that is complete, we think it's fine to consider a low-level API - in fact we will probably submit a proposal - but we strongly object to doing something in parallel. Trying to work on two specifications at once will only slow down the current work which is already late.
>>
>>     Cullen, AC Rep for Cisco
>
>         Ehm. Having attended said conference and the "IETF and W3C
>     Standards Reports" session in particular, allow me to share a
>     differing point of view :)
>
>      1. The vast majority of attendees were Telecoms, not Web Developers.
>      2. There were approximately 50-100 attendees in the session.
>      3. We only had enough time for 4-5 comments. Those who got to
>         speak brought up SDP, H264 and other colorful issues.
>      4. I brought up the topic of SDP. I was assured (by yourself, no
>         less) that users would never have to interact with SDP and
>         encouraged to bring up the topic on the mailing list. When I
>         did exactly that, the reception was less than welcoming (from
>         the Telecoms, that is) and I was disappointed to discover that
>         you did not provide any support (at the very least confirming
>         what you told me in private).
>
>
> I wasn't at the conference, but I think it would really be helpful if 
> your complaint here
> was more precise. As I understand it, Cullen's position is something 
> like the following:
>
> - In general, people won't have to deal with SDP because the API will 
> let you do
>   what you want to do without interacting with SDP.
> - To the extent to which there are meaningful use cases that the API 
> doesn't
>   deal with, we want to eventually add features to the SDP to deal 
> with that.
> - In the period before we have added features to the API, people may 
> have to
>   deal with SDP a bit.
>
> FWIW, I think this reflects a broad feeling (though obviously not 
> complete consensus)
> in the WG.
>
> Is your complaint:
>
> 1. You don't like this answer?
> 2. You wanted Cullen to affirm on the list that this was his answer?
>
> Or something else?
Hi Eric,

     My understanding was: "Our goal is to map all use-cases to 
Constraints so that you never have to deal with SDP, unless you want to 
play with experimental features (outside the scope of the specification) 
and the expectation is that even those will eventually make their way 
into the Constraints API." In other words, I understood that SDP is the 
logical equivalent of CSS prefixes.

 1. I'm fine with his answer. Ideally I'd like the API to hide SDP under
    the hood and tunnel experimental features through Constraint
    prefixes (similar to CSS prefixes) but I'll accept the status quo if
    this is the best we can do.
 2. Yes, I wanted him to affirm what he said publicly because I've read
    contradictory assertions on the mailing list.

     Look, essentially we have a problem of trust. I am looking for the 
Working Group to make a public/binding commitments for major decisions. 
This doesn't mean that they can't change their mind at a later time, but 
at the very least they will need to explain themselves and the community 
will judge if their reasons are reasonable.

     What I don't like (and what I'm getting now) is one member telling 
me "Drop your objection over SDP because we'll give you X, Y, Z which 
will solve all your problems" only to hear at a later time that no such 
commitments were made and oh, by the way, it's too late to object at 
this point because you waited to long.

     I'm not looking to fight. I'm not looking to blame people. I just 
want to work in a productive manner with this group so we can build 
wonderful things together.

     I am not the kind of guy to play mind games with anyone. I am 
primarily interested in transparency and accountability.

Gili