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

Re: Identifying features that may not get implemented

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:50:41 +0000
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <VI1PR0701MB2733C827027F6381F03D6B16C9340@VI1PR0701MB2733.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
On 29/03/17 18:46, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> 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?

Good question. Ultimately I guess it is up to implementors and us (and 
then I mean the webrtc wg as well as the media capture tf).

If identity does not make it past the tollgate (2 implementations), it 
seems to me we would still have the option to enable getUserMedia with 
an 'isolated' (or some other name) MediaStreamConstraints member (with 
tracks that can only be consumed by 'appropriate media tags' (and not 
sent anywhere.

The natural place to spec that would IMO be in mediacapture-main, or an 
extension spec to -main (and we would still need two implementations 

The best solution would be to get another implementation of Identity 
(including the isolated stream)!

> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, 6:28 AM Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> <mailto: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
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2017 07:52:29 UTC

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