Subject: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:33:08 -0700

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

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:26:08 +0200

* cowwoc wrote:
>     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.

W3C's Web Real-Time Communications Working Group is required to address
all feedback it receives in a timely and technically sound manner. Take
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013AprJun/0081
up Anne van Kesteren's offer to help if that is not working out for you.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:04:22 +0000

Could you explain the reasoning behind moving the API discussion to the W3C list while leaving the actual API specification documents as Internet Drafts created and edited by the IETF WG?

I'm all for moving the API work (back) to W3C, but we should move all of it, don't you think?

Matthew Kaufman

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:33 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

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

---

From: Robin Raymond <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:43:16 -0400

Agreed, and in addition, is SDP with offer / answer a mandated surface 
API by the RTCWEB WG or the W3C? (i.e. a mandate that some use cases are 
only solvable with touching the SDP, and web developer must know about 
offer/answer in the process)

If so, which group is mandating that requirement be part of the web 
developer's API?

This helps define which group is appropriate to address those kinds of 
concerns.

-Robin

> Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 9 July, 2013 2:04 PM
>
> Could you explain the reasoning behind moving the API discussion to 
> the W3C list while leaving the actual API specification documents as 
> Internet Drafts created and edited by the IETF WG?
>
> *From:[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Ted Hardie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:33 AM
> *To:* [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> Ted Hardie <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 9 July, 2013 11:33 AM
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:40:23 -0700

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM, cowwoc <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 09/07/2013 11:33 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
> Ted,

I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Is it that the aforementioned
"high-level stakeholders"
aren't engaging or merely that they are only engaging on RTCWEB? If it's
the former, than
I don't think that's actually true, since in the past week, you've had
responses from (at least)
the following people who fall into those categories:

Cullen Jennings (spec editor)
Adam Bergqvist (spec editor)
Peter Thatcher (works on Chrome)
Me (works on Firefox and Chrome; spec editor)
Christer Holmberg (spec editor)
Several people from Microsoft.

Who, exactly, are you expecting to engage that hasn't engaged?

If your complaint is just that they're engaging on the wrong mailing list,
well
that seems to reinforce Ted's point above.

-Ekr

    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
>
>

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:11:48 -0400

Ted,

     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

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:28:59 -0400

> up Anne van Kesteren's offer to help if that is not working out for you.

     Glad to hear it. Thanks!

     I look forward to hearing their feedback.

Gili

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:44:37 -0400

On 09/07/2013 4:40 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Is it that the 
> aforementioned "high-level stakeholders"
> aren't engaging or merely that they are only engaging on RTCWEB? If 
> it's the former, than
Hi Eric,

     It's my understanding that public-webrtc is for discussing the 
WebRTC API, and RTCWeb is for discussing the WebRTC wire protocol.

     Three weeks ago I posted a summary of discussion points that came 
up in the WebRTC World conference (most of which had to do with the 
WebRTC API). To date, I have not received a reply from any of the people 
you have listed. I am unable to gather the necessary momentum to turn 
these points into action items without your help. I was/am frustrated 
that the spec editors and vendors are responsible to engage the 
community on these matters, but did not. I hope this clarifies what I meant.

     On a side-note, I do not view the SDP discussion as a response to 
my post. This discussion was well under-way beforehand and only made up 
one of the seven points I brought up. I would appreciate it if multiple 
stakeholders would address each of the points I brought up.

> If your complaint is just that they're engaging on the wrong mailing 
> list, well

     That's fine. I don't mind moving all API discussion to this list, 
so long as they actually reply this time.

Thank you,
Gili

---

From: Peter Thatcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:36:30 -0700

A minor correction:  I haven't engaged anyone on public-webrtc.  I didn't
even realize there were discussions going on over there about the API,
since I wasn't keeping track and I thought they were all going on over
here.  Sorry about that.  I guess I'll head over there and start engaging
:).

---

From: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:29:03 +0000

Ted Hardie:
	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.

Does that include moving the SDP "API surface" discussions and decisions to the public-webrtc mailing lists? 

I am frankly quite concerned given earlier comments that yes, the W3C had given responsibility for "JSEP" and the resulting SDP work to IETF, and so now we have the IETF WG making decisions but the discussion happening on the W3C list -- which means there's no "paper trail" prior to the IETF meeting on an IETF list about how the participants have weighed in -- and then conversely when the W3C spec gets to last call there will be no "paper trail" at the W3C showing how decisions had been reached about the SDP "API", as that happened over in the MMUSIC WG, which list was not even copied on this message.

Matthew Kaufman

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:40:36 -0700

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> I am frankly quite concerned given earlier comments that yes, the W3C had
> given responsibility for "JSEP" and the resulting SDP work to IETF, and so
> now we have the IETF WG making decisions but the discussion happening on
> the W3C list -- which means there's no "paper trail" prior to the IETF
> meeting on an IETF list about how the participants have weighed in -- and
> then conversely when the W3C spec gets to last call there will be no "paper
> trail" at the W3C showing how decisions had been reached about the SDP
> "API", as that happened over in the MMUSIC WG, which list was not even
> copied on this message.
>
>
All three lists you cited have public archives, so it is clearly not the
case that there is no "paper trail".   But it does occasionally get
confusing, and the chairs made the "locus of API discussions" point in
order to take a particular set of discussions proposing a significant
change to the API and reduce the number of places someone who have to
follow to contribute to that discussion.

I grieve that this has disappointed you,

Ted

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:24:26 -0700

On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:44 PM, cowwoc <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    Three weeks ago I posted a summary of discussion points that came up in the WebRTC World conference (most of which had to do with the WebRTC API). To date, I have not received a reply from any of the people you have listed. I am unable to gather the necessary momentum to turn these points into action items without your help. I was/am frustrated that the spec editors and vendors are responsible to engage the community on these matters, but did not. I hope this clarifies what I meant.

Many of us have been very busy updating drafts for ietf deadline so it as been a hard time to respond.

---

From: cowwoc <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:54:11 -0400

> Many of us have been very busy updating drafts for ietf deadline so it as been a hard time to respond.
Hi Cullen,

     Welcome back :)

     That's understandable but next time might I suggest you reply 
immediately with: "You bring up good points but I am busy updating 
drafts for the ietf deadline. I'll reply as soon as I get this done..." 
At least then there is an acknowledgement that my points are being taken 
into consideration and an expectation that a response will arrive in the 
near future. The current process is very broken. We have a lot of 
discussions on the mailing list without any concrete action items. When 
a discussion thread goes unanswered, there is no follow-up. On the one 
hand, most organizations don't conduct such long discussions over a bug 
tracker but on the other hand a bug tracker provides the assurance that 
an issue will remain open until it is resolved to everyone's mutual 
satisfaction. Issues don't close silently as happens on mailing lists. 
We need to find a way to fix our process.

     Another thing I don't understand: As far as I know, the Working 
Group consists of 
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=47318&public=1&order=org. 
That's around 78 people, yet none of them followed up on this. Where is 
the list of Working Group members that have an obligation to follow-up 
on these kind of posts? Meaning, who could I reasonably expect to reply?

Thanks,
Gili