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

Re: Recap from WebRTC World

From: Alexandre GOUAILLARD <agouaillard@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:42:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHgZEq7P03udUnhKE8-JBsNk-S+McsmvuSES7PARL6uQTnTXpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
really good overview, thank you for the effort of writing it and sharing it
with all.


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Gili <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>     (If you'd like to respond to individual points, please start a
> separate topic)
>      I'd like to start a discussion of issues that came up during the
> WebRTC World conference (in sessions and while speaking with Dan Burnett
> and Cullen Jennings):
>
>    1. Ending the VP8/H264 war: A proposal was made to mandate a
>    patent-unencumbered codec (whose patents have expired or are not enforced)
>    as mandatory and optionally upgrade to other codecs such as VP8 or H264
>    depending on peer capabilities and personal preferences. VP8 guys can use
>    VP8. H264 guys can use H264. And if the two camps need to chat with each
>    other they can fall back on H263. This gives you the flexibility of
>    arbitrary codecs without the need to do transcoding.
>     2. The WebRTC API needs to focus on normal web developers, not not
>    telecom experts: The conversation on this mailing list is unduly skewed in
>    favor of telecom experts which make up a tiny minority of WebRTC end-users.
>    We need to find a way to collect feedback from the Javascript community at
>    large in order to ensure that the API facilitates their use-cases. The
>    proliferation of WebRTC SDKs for end-users (the conference was full of
>    them) is a strong indication that there is a gap to be filled.
>     3. Implementers vs End-users: The specification document has two
>    target audiences, implementers and end-users. We need to provide
>    implementers with a lot of low-level detail but make as little guarantees
>    as possible to end-users to leave the door open to future change (without
>    breaking backwards compatibility). We discussed explicitly marking-up
>    sections of the specification "for implementers" or "for end-users" or
>    separating the specification into separate documents. We need to make it
>    clear, for example, that the specification does not make any guarantees
>    regarding the contents of the SDP token. Implementers need a detailed
>    breakdown in order to implement WebRTC 1.0 but end-users may not rely on
>    these details because the token might not even be SDP in future versions.
>     4. SDP: Users should interact with the Constraints API instead of
>    SDP. It is true that there are some use-cases that are not yet covered by
>    this API (forcing you to manipulate the SDP directly) but the plan is to
>    address all these use-cases by 1.0 so users never have to interact with SDP
>    directly. "If your use-case is not covered by the Constraints API, please
>    tell us right away!"
>     5. Offer/Accept: There are plans to enable peers to query each
>    other's capabilities and change constraints (and as a result the
>    offer/answer) in mid-call.
>     6. Troubleshooting WebRTC: We need to do a better job diagnosing
>    WebRTC problems. We need a user-friendly application (run by
>    non-developers!) for quickly debugging network and microphone problems
>    (Skype does this), and allow users to drill down into more detail if
>    necessary. We also need programmatic access to this API so WebRTC
>    applications can detect problems at runtime and decide (for example) to
>    refund users who paid for a call that was subsequently aborted due to
>    network problems.
>    7. Use-cases, use-cases, use-cases: "Tell us what is wrong, not how to
>    fix it". You are a lot more likely to get traction for your problems if you
>    help us understand your use-cases then trying to argue for change for its
>    own sake. On the flip side for specification editors, I encourage you to
>    actively engage posters (ask for these use-cases) instead of ignoring
>    discussion threads ;)
>
>     I encourage other people who attended the conference to contribute
> their own discussion points.
>
>     (If you'd like to respond to individual points, please start a
> separate topic)
>
> Thank you,
> Gili
>
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 07:46:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:34 UTC