W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2017

Re: WebRTC 1.0 CR exit criteria

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:42:31 +0200
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Message-ID: <d0965571-a97d-c220-443a-c41d03c7bf68@alvestrand.no>
On 04/05/2017 09:24 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed on the call yesterday, here is some more background on
> criteria for existing Candidate Recommendation (i.e. entering Proposed
> Recommendation) - we need define these for our spec now so that they can
> be evaluated later.
>
> Entering Proposed Recommendation requires demonstrating Implementation
> Experience:
>   https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#rec-pr
>
> Implementation experience is used to "show that a specification is
> sufficiently clear, complete, and relevant to market needs, to ensure
> that independent interoperable implementations of each feature of the
> specification will be realized"
>   https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#implementation-experience
> (which also lists some of the criteria that the Director will consider)
>
> Our Working Group charter further specifies:
>> To advance to Proposed Recommendation, each specification is expected
>> to have two independent implementations of each feature defined in
>> the specification.
>> To advance to Proposed Recommendation,
>> interoperability between the independent implementations (that is,
>> bidirectional audio and video communication between the
>> implementations) should be demonstrated.
>   https://www.w3.org/2015/07/webrtc-charter.html#scope
>
>
> Based on this, and following on the specific point that Cullen raised
> about optional features, I would suggest our CR exit criteria should be:
> "To go into Proposed Recommendation status, the group expects to
> demonstrate implementation of each mandatory feature in at least two
> deployed browsers, and at least one implementation of each optional
> feature".
>
> Thoughts?
That works for me. It is backing away a little bit from the charter
language.
I do see another problem: We haven't been careful in the spec to
distinguish between mandatory and optional features - e.g. is DTMF a
mandatory feature?

If we treat them differently, there has to be a way to say which is which.

>
> Dom
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2017 08:43:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:50 UTC