Re: On the way to CR for webrtc-pc

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:33 PM Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> as announced [1] our ambition is to request the transition to CR during
> this month. We received no negative feedback, so that is what we're
> working towards.
>
> We've made good progress on the open Issues, and think we will be able
> to resolve them satisfactory before the end of the month. We're doodling
> for one more Virtual Interim just in case we need a meeting to resolve
> some issues (and it's early May so that would move us into next month) [2].
>
> Since we in [1] asked everyone to file new Issues for everything they
> wanted addressed before asking for transition to CR, and that is about a
> month ago, we plan to label new Issues raised between now and the
> transition request "to be dealt with after transition to CR has been
> requested" or similar, and deal with them after the transition request
> has been issued.
>
> Let us know if you think any of this is unreasonable.
>
> Stefan for the chairs.
>
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2017Mar/0063.html
> [2]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2017Apr/0025.html,
> http://doodle.com/poll/ecs5efy9r5f9747e


I'm not super familiar with what transitioning to CR entails, but can you
say something about what goals you have for interoperability, in both the
"implementations pass the same tests" and "two implementations can
communicate" sense) sense?

In my work to bring Blink's Web IDL files closer into alignment with the
specs that we link to, I'm mostly looking for non-standard things that need
attention, but I also notice things that are in specs but not in Blink.

On RTCPeerConnection, there's at least currentLocalDescription,
pendingLocalDescription, currentRemoteDescription, pendingRemoteDescription
and canTrickleIceCandidates. There are also things from partial interfaces
that are harder to spot, like the sctp attribute. Some of these are not in
Gecko either.

Would it be helpful to the WG with a list of things that seem to
implemented in <2 browsers, or what criteria are you using?

Regarding test coverage,
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/webrtc is fairly
limited and improving automated testing seems blocked on things like
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/issues/5563. Automation aside,
how will you determine the coverage, i.e. how do you make sure that the
sctp attribute is tested and that a lack of implementations would show up
as test failures?