- From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 15:27:11 -0700
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2=5FbPkh6VgqK3=7emDzM9Otf_UovGwMeCh1oCRcJrzw@mail.gmail.com>
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