W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:57:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPF_GTYOXMJBuLyj3=HQOe7QqinE+a2RDV4xT4_HVP_Hym9neQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>

*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
<http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I’ve seen Cullen’s  counterproposal [1] to Dom’s proposed charter revision
> [2] that addressed comments on the charter balloted by the AC. As
> Microsoft’s Advisory Committee representative who filed one of those
> comments, I see two fairly fundamental issues here.
> First, we strongly believe the WebRTC WG should focus on getting WebRTC
> 1.0 done as soon as possible, and that work shouldn’t be distracted by
> discussions about a next-generation standard.  Contrary to some assertions
> expressed on this list,  Microsoft  and Hookflash  do want to see a WebRTC
> 1.0 Recommendation completed that reflects the WG consensus to integrate an
> object model, along the lines proposed by Justin Uberti.   Also, having a
> basic object framework within WebRTC 1.0 (even if the objects are not used
> for direct control) is an important step toward future work.  Until the
> WebRTC 1.0 standard is completed, it is premature to talk about
> interoperability between WebRTC 1.0 and some future standard.
>  Second, we see a major distinction between chartering the WEBRTC WG to
> “extend” the WebRTC 1.0 API, while retaining the SDP control mechanism, and
> working on an API that does not utilize SDP.  In our view, a WebRTC 1.0 API
> with objects only has limited opportunities for extension within the object
> model, since the objects could only be used to provide functionality that
> is not negotiated.  As a result, we view the former approach as more of a
> “WebRTC 1.0 maintenance” exercise.   ORTC’s goal has been to support the
> WebRTC 1.0 feature set without SDP,  which we view as an approach better
> able to accommodate advanced video in the short term and significant
> additional functionality in the long term.  While we recognize there are
> different views on the way forward, we don’t think constraining future
> specs to be backward compatible with 1.0 is a good idea, certainly not at
> this point when the 1.0 spec is still immature and interoperability between
> independent implementations of 1.0 has not been rigorously demonstrated.
> In short, we support the effort to enhance and test WebRTC 1.0 to meet the
> criteria for a Recommendation,  while we and others work on getting  ORTC
> actually implemented.  When those goals are met, we can all assess what
> works in the real world, and then the broader RTC community can talk about
> what a charter for a group to develop the next generation WebRTC standard
> would look like.
> Bottom line, I urge W3C to adopt Dom’s draft revised charter [2] rather
> than the one in [1].
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015Apr/0003.html
> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015Mar/0046.html
Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 14:57:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:43 UTC