Re: [rtcweb] API draft: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> It also served very nicely to illustrate the breadth of functionality that a "low level API" needs to expose.

Actually I'm 100% sure I've forgotten/missed some things it needs to expose.  BUT, some of the things I listed need to be exposed even for a ROAP model, yet for some reason aren't in the WG use-case-and-requirements draft; and some  already exist exposed in the current W3C draft I think.


> One note (speaking as a W3C WG chair): While it's very nice to imagine that one can toss a task like "design an API" over to another organization and having it performed, in practice, the W3C functions much like the IETF; it's not a place where you throw work in order to get work done, it's a place where people who need the work done go to work on the problem.
> But we all knew that, I think….

Actually I don't know anything about the W3C.  What I meant in the draft by saying "it's really up to W3C" was that I thought it was highly presumptuous of us in the IETF to tell the W3C what to do as the API.  I figured they do APIs for a living, while IETF does protocols for a living. (which might explain why we're now talking in the IETF about defining a protocol as an API, eh? ;)

-hadriel