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

Re: Recap from WebRTC World

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:49:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO2tr7=xqRFoiaZc7d70MFQLfD3oGpQX22KheQs7F4M0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "<public-webrtc@w3.org>" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:28 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>
>      I believe the following proposals were not addressed to date:
>
>    - Mandating an unencumbered video codec as a baseline,
>
>
There has been a topic of huge debate in the IETF. It hasn't been
addressed in the sense that no consensus has been reached,
but it's not like no attention has been paid to it.


>    - and allowing arbitrary video codecs (H264, VP8, etc) to be
>    negotiated as an upgrade path.
>
>
This is already a function of the existing API.


>
>    - How do we address the fact that the WG does not represent web
>    developers? (I believe we are in the middle of having this discussion)
>
>
I've responded to you already about this.


>
>    - Implementers vs End-Users: Shouldn't we have separate documents for
>    the two target audiences?
>
>
I think this is a bad idea.

We need one set of documents that normatively specifies the API, not two.
If you want to write a non-normative guide for Web programmers, that
would be incredibly useful and I'm sure we could find a home for it.



>    - Troubleshooting WebRTC: There is a gaping hope when it comes to
>    user-facing diagnostic tools.
>
> This isn't a proposal, but rather a proposal that someone else do
something.
We already have a statistics API which is intended to serve much of this
function. I suggest you either propose new statistics within that API or
alternately explain why that API paradigm doesn't work.

-Ekr
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 05:50:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:35 UTC