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

RE: Google's position on the WebRTC API

From: Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:58:30 +0000
To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF116678FA@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
I think this is a sensible approach to take.

It is clear that WebRTC and the whole industry around it has expanded even more than envisaged and there is much scope for expanding the original requirements and thinking about different mechanisms.  However the best way to serve the industry is to get the current specifications and implementations completed by reducing scope if necessary before starting anything new.

I know from discussing this with many of our own web developers that there are many views on the best way forward after WebRTC 1.0 and it will take quite some time to agree on requirements but we need to get what we have started finished before diverting all that energy.

Let’s hope the unified plan does allow progress to happen in the IETF.

Regards
Andy


From: Justin Uberti [mailto:juberti@google.com]
Sent: 23 July 2013 04:01
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Google's position on the WebRTC API

With the compromise reached in the Unified Plan document, the group has resolved one of the biggest remaining controversies for WebRTC, and cleared the way for finishing up our current specs. Given the current implementation state, we think it's important to complete these docs within the next six months, reducing scope wherever possible to make this happen. We can then refocus on what's next.

Like other implementers, we've recognized that WebRTC has evolved significantly since we started - the original goal of a very simple, interoperable API has been joined by a desire for more direct, low-level control. We see this as the impetus for a different approach, operating a level lower than the current API. Such an API would be a fresh start and address the concerns currently being discussed in this group, but should also allow the current API to be layered on top of it.

While the idea of starting this new work is exciting, just figuring out what is in and out of scope will take a considerable amount of time. That's why we propose scoping down and completing the current work now, and then tackling our new challenge.

Justin, for the Google WebRTC team
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 13:58:53 UTC

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