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

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:17:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3YVDaX6Zs+9=VcO54-ReK6hg_p-i3L2OEE2Vbw+ckxSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.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

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