Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 09 July 2013 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 2930B21F9E1E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.387, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 jWkWK9hEusud for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459D021F9C68 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id l10so8077715oag.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=X6JUH9ZoAprBjNSDWZyT3Faom6FUdALcio/0eJzL0rQ=; b=b0d5bO4fWsYTWUAJezWtuwc8EZVLZIyYTkZfwNtfleUV4yf9+B9mMdgOpxhGxbVpfH ue2owg1U3Dkohy9djb8pU2y+HIbK/EMeMZivrnyxbhfPMB8ZaZOWX8M5zvNV+2jp31Q0 3tf3LiLIajneYXAmJ9DaWJITBfrKDRj1aHnhfQCPddovS4RXq0vHYgXpZPksO55Mwrp1 DduUIVAHXR3GBvVAFBjZyBngdba0nWjXk+MxadTd3vwi8vTCh8JQiBiJy041SxDbxrlR /BttkJlqfnuCC1tg0tn+SgJSAbl82/+isYHwIi4J9QWRbtpsRFdKly7hEkVFejC66RKB Va9Q==
X-Received: by 10.182.186.66 with SMTP id fi2mr24863216obc.98.1373386369610; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g1sm39474084oeq.6.2013.07.09.09.12.48 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51DC3644.4020107@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:11:48 -0400
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org
References: <CA+9kkMAaaT5RRLUrGvzs0zB0jXRQdHLm5HJH5-VkT5p1ZetVPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAaaT5RRLUrGvzs0zB0jXRQdHLm5HJH5-VkT5p1ZetVPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLVx//ys4IEuOmMA9BM41nTvybMvfZ4AdvoFyVd3g21mnvvtLoLMhyh2aYfUeSsqRqtsaP
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:34:00 -0700
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:13:41 -0000

On 09/07/2013 11:33 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> The recent set of API discussions has been spread across both the 
> rtcweb and public-webrtc mailing lists.  That's making it both harder 
> to follow and harder for folks to work out who is saying what under 
> which rules.  The chairs of both groups believe that the right place 
> for the discussion to continue should be public-webrtc.  Please direct 
> follow-ups on this topic to that list.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
Ted,

     I agree, with one caveat: virtually none of the high-level 
stakeholders (spec editors, browser vendors, etc) bother to engage the 
community on public-webrtc.

     What's the point of discussing the API on this mailing list if our 
opinion goes unnoticed? We shouldn't be moving the discussion to 
public-webrtc as a nice way to filter us out. This discussion requires 
their attention, be it on one mailing list or the other. I don't mind 
where we discuss it, so long as they get involved.

     Is it their intention to get involved on public-webrtc and 
summarize the results on rtcweb?

Thanks,
Gili