[rtcweb] Consensus Call: RTCWeb Terminology

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 26 October 2011 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFA121F89B8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.859
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_27=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c7x8NKPoLvRX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C089D21F85C7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=684; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319649468; x=1320859068; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=e3qFe6cFDhLMVcKpT/K87wZtkeXP9LUujk8OtTZJsPE=; b=fHz2aJo4qRdqHyv8XAT0KLMIFHCeyiAP1bkq4pm/tQ9hrMJT1NcVFXr8 rCwkPMAgbyfJppwp8yA7qKUje0/nJjOKB2gnkJE9ZqLJij98x+dHK9bmy WDVAQAS8poiwY0FeS8T8ufy+lgf0Ll5ThzQgrHEZln5qQNMJheLtFJZaI g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,410,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="10438391"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2011 17:17:48 +0000
Received: from [] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com []) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9QHHlZw013403; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:17:47 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3747C7CB-C039-4D15-A46C-8FDB9A47AF3A@acmepacket.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:17:47 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DD0E14D2-252F-442B-9AFC-8ECD6704794B@cisco.com>
References: <AAB480AA-8F03-4C25-8A7C-55B88D057C24@acmepacket.com> <42322A10-14A7-4600-820D-7612A1B12592@cisco.com> <3747C7CB-C039-4D15-A46C-8FDB9A47AF3A@acmepacket.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [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 17:17:49 -0000

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