Re: [rtcweb] New Draft

You might also want to cite some of the reasons noted in this old draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-01

-hadriel

On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com> wrote:

> 
> According
>  to many, real adoption of WebRTC will not happen if we continue to 
> force everyone to use this SDP Offer/Answer methodology.  It is clearly 
> blocking our way forward and the amount of specification documentation 
> remaining needed for the browser vendors to produce a compatible SDP 
> based WebRTC engine in a browser is much more daunting than most are 
> willing to admit.
> 
> 
> The
>  draft rationale behind a JavaScript Object API model:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-js-obj-api-rationale-00.txt
> 
>  
> 
> Whereas:
> The
>  WebRTC JavaScript Object API & Shim document will be along shortly.
> 
> 
> We
>  wanted to get this initial rationale draft informational document out 
> right away. Everyone that has any interest should review the reasons and
>  concepts and comment before we get too far along on the details of an 
> actual API, the initial API will follow in the coming days.
> 
> 
> Best
>  regards,
> 
> Robin
>  Raymond
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

Re: [rtcweb] New Draft - WebRTC JS Object API Model