Re: Identifying features that may not get implemented

If identity assertion  is at risk, does that would mean that isolated
streams are as well, since they depend on identity assertion?  If so is
that just a part of "identity assertion at risk" or is that a separate
thing at risk?

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 6:28 AM Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> As you may know we are planning to request the transition of webrtc-pc
> to CR during April. One thing we would like to do before that is to
> identify features or parts of the spec that are at risk for not getting
> implemented (as has already been done for negotiation of RTPC mux [1],
> and is discussed for identity [2] and rtcp-transport [3]).
>
> We would like to underline that this is not about removing features, it
> is about identifying features that are at risk for removal due to lack
> of implementation (as you know there is a requirement of two independent
> implementations). Identifying those features early could even help in
> getting them implemented, users that want those features may request
> them, or perhaps even contribute to getting them implemented.
>
> Therefore we ask implementors to review webrtc-pc to identify features
> that there is no plan to implement (at least not in the near future),
> and let us know in the way you prefer (e.g. mail to this list, mail to
> chairs, github Issue).
>
> We also plan to touch this subject at the April 4th virtual interim.
>
> Stefan for the chairs
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/#rtcrtcpmuxpolicy-enum
> [2] https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/1074
> [3] https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/1093
>
>