Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology

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