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

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 16:02:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPF_GTYLj-uqB8OxDSjV8Cb16PhDki4xr=B2xLWCXcj8uyXk=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.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>
Thanks Justin, this does a good job of clarifying things imho.

It might serve us well to add a couple of high-level functionality goals
with this new work in mind eg. better performance in mobile environments.
Just so we know from a "high level" what we want to achieve without getting
too far off into the weeds?

*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
<http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 6 May 2015 23:03:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:06 UTC