- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:33:58 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Given that all of the feedback on this proposal has been positive (albeit limited), we are adopting this as our action plan. If you have a PR-ready item, write the PR now! Harald, for the chairs. On 06/30/2015 08:31 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > Sorry for a rather long mail. It is about the scoping of WebRTC 1.0, and > the mail has three parts, “background”, “proposed process” and > “features”. We are especially eager to get feedback on the proposed > process *by July 10*, so if you’re going to read only one part read that > one. > > Background > ========== > We think it is time to revisit the WebRTC 1.0 scope again. We made an > attempt late 2013, and at that time used the spreadsheet in [1] as basis > for the discussion. > > We were not hugely successful at the time, but we think things are > different now. For one, many of the features discussed at that time are > now part of the spec (or in PR’s being actively discussed). Secondly, > the new Charter we will (hopefully) operate under soon [2] list “WebRTC > next version” as something that will get to FPWD Q1 2016 - this means > there is a clear place for the features we determine be beyond 1.0 to > go. And thirdly, the charter also says that WebRTC 1.0 should reach CR > in Q4 this year, meaning we should get serious on what is in and out of > it soon. > > Proposed process > ================ > We think that we should use the upcoming face-to-face meeting in > September to determine what is in 1.0. And in order to be “in” we will > require that the group (at the meeting) has consensus for the feature, > and that a relatively baked PR exists. > > This means that proponents of features must use the time up to the f2f > to create and refine PRs, push for discussion on the list, and that the > group must help by providing feedback. > > Is this a process we can follow? *Please provide feedback by July 10!* > Silence will be interpreted as being OK with this process. > > Features > ======== > Looking at the old 2013 spreadsheet in combination with github Issues > and PRs, it to us looks something like (note, this is not an official > position in any way, it is just an attempt to sort features based on our > understanding of where we are currently): > > Features from 2013 labeled “Not in 1.0” that are now in the spec > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > *RtpSenders/Receivers > *Rollback in state machine > *Track rejection (though we have the detail of making sure the rejected > track is not part of future offers) > *Bundle tuning > *Call hold > *Certificate handling APIs > *Identity > > Features we seem to have consensus to add, need to sort details > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > *replaceTrack > *unassigned media handling (PR #29 goes a bit) > > Features where we have PRs/active discussion, but not clear consensus to add > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > *ICE object > *DTLS object > *codec parameters on RtpSenders > > Features at risk for in 1.0 (may revisit in post-1.0 work) > ---------------------------------------------------------- > *Partial offers/answers (no discussion or progress in IETF or W3C - > probably not in scope for post-1.0 either since it seems we're moving > away from SDP) > *API for Simulcast/SVC > *https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/4 CSRC added to RtpReceiver > *https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/5 indicate if temporal or > spatial video quality is most important - RtpSender > *ICE pool size > *Worker support for data channel > > Stefan for the chairs > > [1] > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Dec/att-0076/Chairs__proposal_for_WebRTC_1.0_In_2FOut_-_W3C__1_.pdf > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/webrtc-charter.html > -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 11:34:30 UTC