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

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:49:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNd8D2VApQT1XaMh261oAHK=F_-=JKncvrO66qJwG2_mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:50 PM, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:

>
> > On 28 Apr 2015, at 16:28, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I put a diff at
> >
> > https://github.com/fluffy/webrtc-charter/compare/gh-pages...fluffy:ekr
> >
> > I like the text you put in this because I think it reflects the
> relativity of what the WG intends to do.
>
>
> I have a couple of serious problems with this text.
> Firstly I don’t like the characterzation of low-level and high-level  APIs.
> I substituted 'object-orientated' and 'declarative SDP’ - (I considered
> ‘opaque SDP blob’)
>
> The reality of the current API is that everyone has to mess with the SDP
> to get what they
> want, and frankly there is nothing lower level than regexps on SDP.
>

I have no strong opinion on this phrasing.



> Secondly the backwards compatibility is phrased in a way that binds the
> future spec to
> reproducing every quirk of the current _implementations_ - We should not
> be doing this.
> It is (as I said a while back) reasonable to expect that apps written to
> the 1.0 API spec
> work in 1.1 - but not if they use undocumented features of implementations
> (like some
> of the more bizarre SDP mangling)- If folks have treated the SDP blob as
> opaque then
> their apps should work in 1.1 - if they have mangled it then probably not.
>

This might need some wordsmithing but I agree with the sentiment, I think.
If there
is SDP mangling that JSEP requires you to support, then that needs to
continue to work
but that seems like it should be minimal (and is so far, certainly!)


Thirdly, the exclusion of 1.0 api surfaces in the new object-orientated API
> is absurd.
> I’m hoping that it is a quirk of language and not the intention that the
> new API has to
> have similar - but different - method and object names. As currently
> written EKR's charter
> forbids the new api from using the Doohickey stuff if it gets included in
> 1.0. Which is
> perverse since it was largely lifted from ORTC discussions.
>

No I absolutely didn't mean that. The point is supposed to be that you
don't need to use
the SDP APIs to make calls. Your language seems OK to me here, but again
others
may want to wordsmith.

-Ekr


> I’ve done a quick re-write to fix these issues.
>
> https://github.com/steely-glint/webrtc-charter/tree/nonpajorative
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 13:50:28 UTC

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