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

Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:15:34 -0400
Message-ID: <51EF46D6.9040207@bbs.darktech.org>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 23/07/2013 11:09 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 6:03 PM, cowwoc <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 :)
>> 	 The vast majority of attendees were Telecoms, not Web Developers.
>> 	 There were approximately 50-100 attendees in the session.
>> 	 We only had enough time for 4-5 comments. Those who got to speak brought up SDP, H264 and other colorful issues.
>> 	 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 understand Cisco's business interests in this matter, but I wanted to clarify that as an independent/unaligned Web Developer attending the same conference my perspective was quite different.
>> Gili
> As I said, it was in the main plenary at the end not the standards session.

     We're in luck. I just so happen to have the conference agenda in 
front of me. Which time/day was this on?

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 03:16:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC