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

Scoping WebRTC 1.0

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:31:54 +0000
To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1D28D503@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
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
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 06:47:46 UTC

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