IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com> Tue, 09 July 2013 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <robin@hookflash.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 F2E1321F9E83 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.696, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 e-f1983PjPYU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6321E21F9E6E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 10so13962444ied.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=fFZah6OAjiBMYJY8rCBQE5iXWXeGdNpk1NqLrYSN/0g=; b=IZj9ZGP3T7iQ7X20M2uTFMYxMbnvP0edWKP+GfcY+Vhe38jbAkv5zRXTsssCmJbr8H qN+6XeZESdWc6yNerkDxRTjQTyzGB8Rj1kmKAXObgkUyFHJQ3NRnT+b1DSN3WOTgF1nP yPeo7TA7YUC2Ik3OfOkh5FcEmHox5w7rLHLCVcoYloxoeFe5LCAaL/edqlwfQNMWQeAJ YhORf61bPFUFrYWP5tVUIZEm78tWtcZRfpY6PHcmv06rZRHb65smLJ3ct++xerG0ZHSE 5seBwaH7pBCHAX2UeKZ7xx9IHZol6ryDISC4TGmtA5CCH2kMYlHi+BQGNBl1Nu4PiMxh PpLQ==
X-Received: by 10.43.137.131 with SMTP id io3mr8866487icc.79.1373399000062; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Robins-MacBook-Pro.local (CPE602ad08742f7-CM602ad08742f4.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.224.116.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q10sm10816412ige.4.2013.07.09.12.43.18 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51DC67D4.9050101@hookflash.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:43:16 -0400
From: Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
References: <CA+9kkMAaaT5RRLUrGvzs0zB0jXRQdHLm5HJH5-VkT5p1ZetVPQ@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841D143E48@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4841D143E48@TK5EX14MBXC274.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080803060801030407060808"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmRMurkiHXvnSOC9SmOH4muMMGZeDJ4FciH8TOSzfVAUfpVPVvy2S69sMok40h7BMg5XqLK
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion
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, 09 Jul 2013 19:43:26 -0000

Agreed, and in addition, is SDP with offer / answer a mandated surface 
API by the RTCWEB WG or the W3C? (i.e. a mandate that some use cases are 
only solvable with touching the SDP, and web developer must know about 
offer/answer in the process)

If so, which group is mandating that requirement be part of the web 
developer's API?

This helps define which group is appropriate to address those kinds of 
concerns.

-Robin


> Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <mailto:matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
> 9 July, 2013 2:04 PM
>
> Could you explain the reasoning behind moving the API discussion to 
> the W3C list while leaving the actual API specification documents as 
> Internet Drafts created and edited by the IETF WG?
>
> I'm all for moving the API work (back) to W3C, but we should move all 
> of it, don't you think?
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> *From:*rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Ted Hardie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:33 AM
> *To:* rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
> *Subject:* [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion
>
> Howdy,
>
> The recent set of API discussions has been spread across both the 
> rtcweb and public-webrtc mailing lists.  That's making it both harder 
> to follow and harder for folks to work out who is saying what under 
> which rules.  The chairs of both groups believe that the right place 
> for the discussion to continue should be public-webrtc.  Please direct 
> follow-ups on this topic to that list.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> Ted Hardie <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>
> 9 July, 2013 11:33 AM
> Howdy,
>
> The recent set of API discussions has been spread across both the 
> rtcweb and public-webrtc mailing lists.  That's making it both harder 
> to follow and harder for folks to work out who is saying what under 
> which rules.  The chairs of both groups believe that the right place 
> for the discussion to continue should be public-webrtc.  Please direct 
> follow-ups on this topic to that list.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email