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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Fri, 21 October 2011 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128F021F8ABE for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e1Kd0lxMcHfn for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DCFA21F8AFD for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so3864533vcb.31 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id et7mr14019869vdc.35.1319195634902; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:13:54 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] API draft: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:13:56 -0000

2011/10/21 Hadriel Kaplan <>:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>        Title           : API Requirements for RTCWEB-enabled Browsers
>        Author(s)       : Hadriel Kaplan
>                         Dan Burnett
>                         Neil Stratford
>                         Tim Panton
>        Filename        : draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00.txt
>        Pages           : 13
>        Date            : 2011-10-21
>  This document discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several
>  proposed approaches to what type of API and architectural model
>  RTCWeb Browsers should expose and use.  The document then defines
>  the requirements for an API that treats the Browser as a library and
>  interface as opposed to a self-contained application agent.
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:

I love this draft.

Just a comment. The draft says:

   There has been discussion that RTCWeb should strive to enable media
   communication session with about "20 lines of code".  We assert the
   only means of achieving that goal in a production-deployment manner
   is to use Javascript, and in particular Javascript libraries.

I would like to insist on that. When people says "20 lines of code" I
expect that they mean the number of lines that a *high-user* needs to
write in order to code a RTC session. But I assume that such
*high-user* is using a JS library the browser retrieved from the
website, and that JS library deals with all the complexity at low

So for example, let's take a look to Phono JS library. It does allow
implementing a call in 20 lines of code, but the library itself has
more than 20 lines :)
Anyhow the high-user must only deal with Phono JS API and using such
API can code a call in 20 lines.

That's the point IMHO. Let's the complexity to the developers of JS
libraries, and they will make a simple API for end users. This is how
WWW works and IMHO RTCweb should go in the same direction. We cannot
and must no change WWW.

Best regards.

Iñaki Baz Castillo