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

RE: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:03:01 +0000
To: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Bernard Aboba" <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB4887CFC4A8B89C2C8A91A5E97D60@BLUPR03MB488.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I believe Microsoft will be OK with these changes to Doms most recent draft. The ORTC liaison statement is not needed with Erik's description of how the groups will work together to draft a 1.1.

I had thought it better to wait until 1.0 CR to have this 1.1 diacussion, but if the WG wants to have it now, I'll stop complaining!

________________________________
From: Erik Lagerway<mailto:erik@hookflash.com>
Sent: 4/30/2015 1:55 PM
To: Justin Uberti<mailto:juberti@google.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings<mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>; Eric Rescorla<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>; Bernard Aboba<mailto:Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>; Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)<mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>; public-webrtc@w3.org<mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed Charter Changes

The bulk of the changes are as follows, template from Dom, some from Ekr, some from Tim, some from me + removed the Liaison requirement.

As the name implies, WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers is to be considered as a first version of APIs for real-time communication. The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers reaches Candidate Recommendation, consider working on a new set of object-oriented APIs for real-time communication to produce an object-oriented specification to follow 1.0. The activities in the ORTC (Object Real-time Communications) Community Group indicate that there is interest in a new set of APIs. As part of this consideration, the group will reevaluate its deliverables and milestones, and may reconsider its scope.

In developing an Object API, the WG will adhere to the following principles.
- Backwards-compatibility: applications which run in WebRTC 1.0 will continue to function with the Object API.
- Standalone operation: The new Object APIs will be sufficiently complete as to prevent the need for the programmer to switch between object-orientated and 1.0 SDP styles in order to complete common tasks.
- Feature independence: New features may be introduced in the object-oriented API that are not accessible in the documented 1.0 API or that are only added to the 1.0 SDP API in future versions.

The WG will make efforts to align on API methodologies and nomenclature with the ORCT CG when contemplating design of similar APIs in the WG. This may include scheduled design meetings with relevant WG and CG stakeholders to foster further convergence of the APIs.

---

Your comments around "Object" are noted, also heard that "low-level" and "NG" are not working for some as well, so not sure what to do there.



/Erik

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com<mailto:juberti@google.com>> wrote:
Can you put up a link to a github diff? It's hard to tell which parts are new here.

I am not a fan of the "Object" / "1.0 SDP" terminology. Most of the objects already exist (or will exist) in 1.0, so calling the NG thing "Object" seems inaccurate at best.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca<mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>> wrote:

I look forward to seeing the discussion on the Hookflash proposal and I need to think about about it more but my first reaction is that looks like something that I could live with and might be OK to most the WG.


> On Apr 30, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com<mailto:erik@hookflash.com>> wrote:
>
> Based on concerns raised and after speaking to several WG and CG participants, I am proposing the following changes:
>
> - removed liaison requirement
> - added some copy around getting the groups working together
> - changed "low-level" to Object
> - changed "high-level" to 1.0 SDP
>
> I believe this addresses most of the concerns and feels like a common ground we can start from, the proposal in its entirety is attached.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
>
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 21:03:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:44 UTC