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

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 15:27:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2=5FbPkh6VgqK3=7emDzM9Otf_UovGwMeCh1oCRcJrzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
OK, I have tweaked Erik's proposed text to try to make it clear what the
purpose of the new APIs are, by adding a new bullet called "Direct
control".

I also performed a few other wordsmithings. Hopefully those in favor of
Erik's proposal will also like this version.

Diff from Erik's proposal:
https://github.com/fluffy/webrtc-charter/compare/alt...juberti:alt

Full proposal:
https://github.com/juberti/webrtc-charter/blob/alt/proposed-charter.txt

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> I agree that NG doesn't really explain what its purpose is, and "object"
> is similarly vague.
>
> I think it needs the exact goal of this effort needs to be made explicit.
> I am not wedded to the term "low-level", but somehow the relationship
> between 1.0 and the new API needs to be described, as well as how the new
> API differs from the existing API. And to be clear, "does not use SDP" is
> not an adequate description; SDP does something, so are we inventing an
> alternative, or specifically leaving that functionality to applications
> (and thereby moving down a layer in the stack?)
>
> I will take a shot at coming up with text for this.
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote:
>
>> The bulk of the changes are as follows, template from Dom, some from Ekr,
>> some from Tim, some from *me *+ removed the Liaison requirement.
>>
>> As the name implies, WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers
>> is to be considered as a first version of APIs for real-time communication.
>> The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
>> Browsers reaches Candidate Recommendation, consider working on a new set of *object-oriented
>> APIs for real-time communication to produce an object-oriented
>> specification to follow 1.0*. The activities in the ORTC (Object
>> Real-time Communications) Community Group indicate that there is interest
>> in a new set of APIs. As part of this consideration, the group will
>> reevaluate its deliverables and milestones, and may reconsider its scope.
>>
>> In developing an *Object API*, the WG will adhere to the following
>> principles.
>> - Backwards-compatibility: applications which run in *WebRTC 1.0* will
>> continue to function with the* Object API*.
>> - Standalone operation: The new *Object API*s will be sufficiently
>> complete as to prevent the need for the programmer to switch between
>> object-orientated and 1.0 SDP styles in order to complete common tasks.
>> - Feature independence: New features may be introduced in the
>> object-oriented API that are not accessible in the documented *1.0 API*
>> or that are only added to the *1.0 SDP API* in future versions.
>>
>> *The WG will make efforts to align on API methodologies and nomenclature
>> with the ORCT CG when contemplating design of similar APIs in the WG. This
>> may include scheduled design meetings with relevant WG and CG stakeholders
>> to foster further convergence of the APIs.*
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Your comments around "Object" are noted, also heard that "low-level" and
>> "NG" are not working for some as well, so not sure what to do there.
>>
>>
>>
>> /Erik
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you put up a link to a github diff? It's hard to tell which parts
>>> are new here.
>>>
>>> I am not a fan of the "Object" / "1.0 SDP" terminology. Most of the
>>> objects already exist (or will exist) in 1.0, so calling the NG thing
>>> "Object" seems inaccurate at best.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to seeing the discussion on the Hookflash proposal and I
>>>> need to think about about it more but my first reaction is that looks like
>>>> something that I could live with and might be OK to most the WG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Apr 30, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Based on concerns raised and after speaking to several WG and CG
>>>> participants, I am proposing the following changes:
>>>> >
>>>> > - removed liaison requirement
>>>> > - added some copy around getting the groups working together
>>>> > - changed "low-level" to Object
>>>> > - changed "high-level" to 1.0 SDP
>>>> >
>>>> > I believe this addresses most of the concerns and feels like a common
>>>> ground we can start from, the proposal in its entirety is attached.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> > Erik
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 May 2015 22:28:00 UTC

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