Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

Ted Hardie <> Wed, 17 July 2013 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1DA21F9C28 for <>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.328
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tpK0a3bCM8jy for <>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1229421F9D4F for <>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id aq17so5229818iec.8 for <>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Gv4nBqgcBEezlSwEzpLcyLS98CJAEARUozL3m3Hq2zU=; b=FlkZxeUnUbGgQzt/y95vaLfh3L/iqTAz1tiH4YEj7vt+xZXbpi+b8yAkyL0PgeXbpq h/swh0G8lJES5wyWhMPPH8fiOn0eNvLnAEUF7uVPC0kvCgNAIc2ceNI9cCV55iGk5Qep WObfYECnrZ6BqVT7+Oe/KBD7+FV7TgnmsxNe7ftTFfohrLeTBTLEvNtzaVHxiRwj/33K 2x/x+Z70zE9sdTP8SjI/qhfDGk9Q1ngE6rQJTqh8PMYgJfgtfk6lVYU8ptn3ZV0CIe0t SmaNzDutUolbcDWre7ISgUmUhwHnMhvJsrC/uL06Gf9iwOLVw9+Dk6tLyQ3cNzBcAotX mpLA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id xt9mr5476719icb.99.1374100836377; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:40:36 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e015370963e3d4a04e1bcc86a
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:40:38 -0000

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <> wrote:

> I am frankly quite concerned given earlier comments that yes, the W3C had
> given responsibility for "JSEP" and the resulting SDP work to IETF, and so
> now we have the IETF WG making decisions but the discussion happening on
> the W3C list -- which means there's no "paper trail" prior to the IETF
> meeting on an IETF list about how the participants have weighed in -- and
> then conversely when the W3C spec gets to last call there will be no "paper
> trail" at the W3C showing how decisions had been reached about the SDP
> "API", as that happened over in the MMUSIC WG, which list was not even
> copied on this message.
All three lists you cited have public archives, so it is clearly not the
case that there is no "paper trail".   But it does occasionally get
confusing, and the chairs made the "locus of API discussions" point in
order to take a particular set of discussions proposing a significant
change to the API and reduce the number of places someone who have to
follow to contribute to that discussion.

I grieve that this has disappointed you,