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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Fri, 21 October 2011 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E852321F8C6A for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.52
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.070, 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 vddUg3aIkl4c for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED1E21F8C65 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so3436586vws.31 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id e2mr13983746vdj.52.1319200237364; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:30:37 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
To: Dan Burnett <>
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 12:30:39 -0000

2011/10/21 Dan Burnett <>:
> And speaking as an editor in the W3C group to which you are referring, the point here is that protocol discussions are leading API discussions, and both are happening in the RTCWeb group, when the API discussions should all be happening in the W3C WebRTC group.  But, since JS API discussions are happening here, we now have a "no-signaling" draft in the IETF that lists requirements on the WebRTC API, *because the chairs asked for it*.

Hi Dan, I understand your point but please consider that this WG has
been involved in a discussion about the scope of such WebRTC API. It's
still unclear/undefined whether such API must only deal with media
aspects of the RTCweb stack in the browser, or whether it must also
deal with external signaling (in-the-wire).

Honestly I think that current works and proposals are helping a lot
for us to understand the whole picture. However I don't think that
this WG is attempting to define such API (which is a task of W3C) but
just to define its scope.


Iñaki Baz Castillo