Re: Call for comments: New charter for WebRTC Working Group

On 20/01/15 19:32, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Given the short upcoming deadline, it might be most practical to shoot
> for a short-term renewal (6-9 months) focused on completing WebRTC 1.0.

6-9 months would in the best case get WebRTC 1.0 to CR, but the 
responsibility of the WG is to pull it all the way to a Rec (and there 
are a number of other docs with a similar time frame as well even if you 
exclude WebRTC NG) which would probably take a couple of years.

In that light, I'm not sure such a short-term renewal makes sense.

>    Assuming that work goes well, then we could move on to discussion of
> a re-charter for NG work.
>
> With respect to the scope of a WebRTC 1.0-focussed charter, my
> impression from the May interim was that there was consensus to add
> Sender/Receiver objects (which I believe will be integrated in the next
> Editor’s draft) as well as other objects (IceTransport +  DtlsTransport,
> wasn’t sure those are in the upcoming draft).  I’d like to see that work
> finished and included in WebRTC 1.0, and if we focus on this, it seems
> doable within a short-term renewal.

I agree to this.

>
> Personally, I do not consider simulcast or SVC to be essential to WebRTC
> 1.0.  Simulcast can be supported via track cloning currently which may
> be “good enough”.   Supporting SVC is a substantial task (as we are
> finding out within the ORTC CG) so that this may be one temptation best
> avoided in WebRTC 1.0.

+1, and I don't think anyone has seriously proposed to make it part of 1.0.

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 19:17:29 UTC