- From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:17:00 -0700
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Cc: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3YVDaX6Zs+9=VcO54-ReK6hg_p-i3L2OEE2Vbw+ckxSg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > 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. > I don't care for the new terminology. PeerConnection can be implemented atop the ORTC objects. Ergo, ORTC is a lower-level API. Clumsiness in an API doesn't affect its position in the stack. > > > >> 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 16:25:40 UTC