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

Re: On the way to CR for webrtc-pc

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:05:10 +0000
To: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <VI1PR0701MB2733900DD6BB619C9717CDB9C9190@VI1PR0701MB2733.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
On 17/04/17 12:01, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:33 PM Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> <mailto: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?

I'm not super familiar either! But my understanding is that for moving 
to CR there is no real need to have done testing, or that 
implementations are available. To quote the process document 

"A Candidate Recommendation is a document that satisfies the Working 
Group's technical requirements, and has already received wide review. 
W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to

- signal to the wider community that it is time to do a final review
- gather implementation experience
- ...."

However, as also said in the process document the CR may identify 
features as "at risk" if we think there will not be sufficient amount of 
implementation when it is time to move to PR. That's why we asked to 
that kind of input in 

> 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.

This is good information, but, as said, at this stage it is even more 
interesting to know for what features there is no *plan* to implement. 
With that information (from all browser vendors of course) we can mark 
those features "at risk" at this stage if we believe there will not be 
two implementations available when it is time to move to PR.

> 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?

That would be very helpful, especially if each item comes with info 
saying e.g. "planned to be implemented" or "no plans for implementation".

> 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?
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 07:05:53 UTC

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