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

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

From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:53:21 -0500
Message-ID: <54BEB231.3090608@gmail.com>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
It's important to remember that completing a W3C specification requires 
dealing with _all_ comments we receive, from within and without the 
W3C.  Dealing with a comment requires either that the commenter accept 
our response to the comment or that we go through some complicated - and 
time consuming - W3C procedures to handle unreconciled differences.

The upshot of this is that a major determinant of our schedule is 
outside of our control, namely how many people comment and how stubborn 
they are.

- Jim
On 1/20/2015 2:17 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> 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 19:53:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:42 UTC