Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: multiple - Call for Consensus (CfC): WebRTC-NV

Tim said:

"Even in situations where a use-case is already possible with existing APIs I think it can be useful to add it."

[BA] Sometimes "already possible" masks limitations. For example, low-latency use cases have been implemented using datachannel and MSE, neither of which supported workers.   Also, applications utilized "low latency MSE", which was not standardized and has not been implemented in an interoperable way in different browsers.   MSEv2 and datachannel in workers make it possible to implement a pipeline in workers, improving the smoothness of rendering considerably, and in situations where DRM is not required, uncontainerized media can be transported and decoded using WebCodecs, which has the potential to work more uniformly across browsers.  So even though the use case was "already possible", there were major limitations that could be removed by new APIs.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between "already possible, works great!" and "possible, but with significant limitations"?

Youenn said:

"I agree with the importance of documenting existing use cases.
The scope of WebRTC-NV is a bit different AIUI given its ’next version’ name.
My understanding of the main goal here is to explore use cases bringing new requirements to the table, which in turn should pave the way to new APIs/new feature proposals."

[BA] Yes, the intent of the WebRTC-NV document is to develop new requirements that were not surfaced in the original WebRTC Uses document, RFC 7478.  Note that a few use cases already described in RFC 7478 (e.g. conferencing) are included in WebRTC-NV because there were limitations that new APIs can remove.  So that is an example of "documenting existing use cases" in order to surface requirements.