Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Wed, 26 October 2011 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.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 465A611E8073 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.955
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.356, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_27=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 OKuxzSmUYEKX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30A221F888A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.22) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:29:06 -0400
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.232]) by Mail2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.157]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:29:07 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology
Thread-Index: AQHMlBWGEKECh+8lQkm6uqfqXW9quA==
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:29:05 +0000
Message-ID: <03898B72-CEEB-4A75-850A-5E453213418D@acmepacket.com>
References: <AAB480AA-8F03-4C25-8A7C-55B88D057C24@acmepacket.com> <42322A10-14A7-4600-820D-7612A1B12592@cisco.com> <3747C7CB-C039-4D15-A46C-8FDB9A47AF3A@acmepacket.com> <DD0E14D2-252F-442B-9AFC-8ECD6704794B@cisco.com> <201110261756.p9QHuke7006749@mtv-core-1.cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233D45FF4@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852233D45FF4@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.0.0.30]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <BEEADD4BBF7095438F837E722FA6B4D5@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology
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: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:29:11 -0000

I think you mean a WebSBC.

;)


On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> 
> Why does Hadriel care - an SBC can always change the terminology ;) 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: 26. lokakuuta 2011 20:57
> To: Hadriel Kaplan
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology
> 
> Hadriel
> 
> now that you named it, you have to fix it (or otherwise make it work) ...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> James
> 
> At 12:17 PM 10/26/2011, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
>> With my chair hat on ...
>> 
>> I'd like to declare we currently have consensus for Hadriel's proposal 
>> that the technology should be referred to as "WebRTC" and the API as 
>> the "WebRTC API". The IETF WG name is still RTCWeb, the mailing list is 
>> still rtcweb@ietf.org, the IETF drafts should still have "-rtcweb-" in 
>> them to indicate the WG name.
>> 
>> Cullen <RTCWeb CoChair>
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> 
>>> For the API, the consensus was it would be confusing to people if
>> we weren't consistent with W3C docs.
>>> 
>>> So I propose the following:
>>> 
>>> WebRTC: the whole shebang
>>> WebRTC API: the JS<->Browser API.
>>> 
>>> -hadriel
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb