- From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:11:16 -0700
- To: tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-28JEVhTrsqwdz-pehiJyTRL1eGe1o6W_YMxjK3puqwfQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:55 AM, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote: > > 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> 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. > > > 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. > > I am pretty sure that it is. PeerConnection is the session negotiation layer atop the underlying RTCRtp* and Transport objects. The lower layer pieces have no negotiation facility. This makes the distinction between PeerConnection and the lower-layer objects easy to reason about.
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 17:12:04 UTC