Re: Proposed Charter Changes

> On 29 Apr 2015, at 18:17, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:50 PM, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk <mailto:thp@westhawk.co.uk>> wrote:
> 
> > On 28 Apr 2015, at 16:28, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com <mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I put a diff at
> >
> > https://github.com/fluffy/webrtc-charter/compare/gh-pages...fluffy:ekr <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. 

Honestly I’m not wedded to the words either, but ‘low' and ‘high' make a set of
assumptions about implementations that we probably shouldn’t be making in at this stage.

> 
> PeerConnection can be implemented atop the ORTC objects. Ergo, ORTC is a lower-level API. 

Um, I’d heard that ORTC could also be implemented on top of PeerConnection.
(although why is a whole other question).

> 
> Clumsiness in an API doesn't affect its position in the stack. 

True, but is this a stack? Or are these are side-by-side APIs that drive the really low level stuff
like crypto/audio/video/networking? We shouldn’t be presupposing that it _is_ a stack 
in a charter unless we are absolutely certain that it _has_to_be_ . I’m (as you can tell)
unconvinced.


T.