Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Tue, 25 October 2011 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F7311E80F6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.246
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.647, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_27=1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g4aPQTfl5gNk for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD01911E80F4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail06.sonusnet.com (sonusmail06.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.156]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9P4Yf95009713; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:34:41 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail06.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:34:06 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:04:03 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159C2A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <EB0F0985-66AC-4EF9-A5D9-862DD5C7443E@ag-projects.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology
thread-index: AcySkX5DGBiUaI2rTVGnscZr8DOrgwAPc/7w
References: <AAB480AA-8F03-4C25-8A7C-55B88D057C24@acmepacket.com> <42322A10-14A7-4600-820D-7612A1B12592@cisco.com> <3747C7CB-C039-4D15-A46C-8FDB9A47AF3A@acmepacket.com> <EB0F0985-66AC-4EF9-A5D9-862DD5C7443E@ag-projects.com>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Adrian Georgescu <ag@ag-projects.com>, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2011 04:34:06.0048 (UTC) FILETIME=[54804600:01CC92CF]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:34:58 -0000

+1

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-webrtc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-webrtc-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Adrian Georgescu
>Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:31 PM
>To: Hadriel Kaplan
>Cc: Cullen Jennings; rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Terminology
>
>WebRTC sounds great!
>
>Adrian
>
>On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there is an answer to this yet so I guess we need to
>figure it out.  I'm ore concerned about the long term explanation to
>people outside W3C or IETF. Hadriel, with you marketing hat on, you
have
>any suggestions of what we should call the whole thing?
>>
>> Web 4.0.  ;)
>>
>> I asked a couple other folks and the consensus seems to be: "WebRTC"
>for the whole thing.
>>
>> The rationale is that it's still the Web but with native real-time-
>communication support, as opposed to real-time-communication but with
>web support.  For example if you wrote a book about how to write Web-
>apps for it, you would probably use the term "WebRTC" in the book
title.
>Another rationale was that it follows the naming scheme for WebM and
>WebP.
>>
>> For the API, the consensus was it would be confusing to people if we
>weren't consistent with W3C docs.
>>
>> So I propose the following:
>>
>> WebRTC: the whole shebang
>> WebRTC API: the JS<->Browser API.
>>
>> -hadriel
>> p.s. personally I've gotten used to the term "RTCWeb", but it may be
>because of my IETF focus rather than W3C/Web focus.
>>
>>
>
>