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

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:39:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2SbG1Gnoq3trb3y8-d+qBYPZPyh+OJsyfSnmVhSL-gtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I agree that NG doesn't really explain what its purpose is, and "object" is
similarly vague.

I think it needs the exact goal of this effort needs to be made explicit. I
am not wedded to the term "low-level", but somehow the relationship between
1.0 and the new API needs to be described, as well as how the new API
differs from the existing API. And to be clear, "does not use SDP" is not
an adequate description; SDP does something, so are we inventing an
alternative, or specifically leaving that functionality to applications
(and thereby moving down a layer in the stack?)

I will take a shot at coming up with text for this.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote:

> 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 API*s 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>
> 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> 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>
>>> 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 21:40:11 UTC

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