Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,



The decision to use that terminology (browser, non-browser and compliant) was made during the first RTCWEB session at the same IETF meeting, when Harald presented the status of the overview draft.



I assume Harald will implement that decision into the next version of the overview draft.



Regards,



Christer


From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: 16 December 2014 22:10
To: David Singer; Harald Alvestrand
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

On 12/16/14 13:33, David Singer wrote:

Except I can’t find the text “non-browser” in the referenced document.

Huh. I see the following (cf. <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-13#section-2.2><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-13#section-2.2>):



   o  A WebRTC non-browser is something that conforms to the protocol

      specification, but does not claim to implement the Javascript API.

      This can also be called a "WebRTC device" or "WebRTC native

      application".


In terms of the text you cited about the relationship between terms, which is an outdated version of:


   All WebRTC browsers are WebRTC endpoints, so any requirement on a

   WebRTC endpoint also applies to a WebRTC browser.

If you think you see somewhere that we're imposing a requirement on an endpoint that doesn't *also* apply to a browser, please call it out explicitly.

If this is some oblique attempt to complain about the reference to the -12 version of the overview document [1]  by pretending to be daft [2]: you're not fooling anyone, so you can stop it. You may be misguided, but we all know that you're not stupid.

/a

____
[1] Rather than the -13 version that came out three days after *this* document
[2] As you did with the "Brower" typo