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

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:48:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtZt=3Z0sPCs_1m06b7kWGt09LPXB3nd26CC=ieM+V=AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
Cc: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
+1 as well

Roman Shpount

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote:

> +1
> *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 16:48:47 UTC

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