Re: Scoping WebRTC 1.0

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
> * CSRC added to RtpReceiver
> * indicate if temporal or 
> spatial video quality is most important - RtpSender
> *ICE pool size
> *Worker support for data channel
> Stefan for the chairs
> [1] 
> [2]

Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 11:34:30 UTC