IRC log of webrtc on 2012-04-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:51:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webrtc
14:51:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:51:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:51:46 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webrtc
14:51:48 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be RTC
14:51:48 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see UW_Web RTC()11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes
14:51:49 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Real-Time Communications Working Group Teleconference
14:51:49 [trackbot]
Date: 10 April 2012
14:53:50 [Zakim]
UW_Web RTC()11:00AM has now started
14:53:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.403.244.aaaa
14:53:58 [fluffy]
fluffy has joined #webrtc
14:54:58 [Zakim]
14:55:30 [Zakim]
14:55:36 [burn]
zakim, I am Dan_Burnett
14:55:36 [Zakim]
ok, burn, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett
14:56:38 [fluffy]
zakim, I am Cullen_Jennings
14:56:38 [Zakim]
sorry, fluffy, I do not see a party named 'Cullen_Jennings'
14:57:16 [fluffy]
yes - thanks
14:57:18 [dom]
Zakim, aaaa is Cullen_Jennings
14:57:18 [Zakim]
+Cullen_Jennings; got it
14:57:18 [stefanh]
stefanh has joined #webrtc
14:57:41 [nstratford]
nstratford has joined #webrtc
14:58:28 [dom]
dom has changed the topic to: WebRTC WG Teleconf April 10 - agenda
14:58:30 [dom]
14:58:50 [dom]
Chair: Stefan_Hakansson, Harald_Alvestrand
14:59:11 [Jim]
Jim has joined #webrtc
14:59:21 [adambe]
adambe has joined #webrtc
14:59:31 [Zakim]
14:59:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.800.aabb
15:00:14 [Zakim]
15:00:18 [dom]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
15:00:18 [Zakim]
+dom; got it
15:00:39 [Zakim]
15:00:44 [Zakim]
+ +
15:00:58 [stefanh]
Zakim, aacc is stefanh
15:00:58 [Zakim]
+stefanh; got it
15:01:13 [leonpo]
leonpo has joined #webrtc
15:01:16 [Zakim]
+ +
15:01:35 [dom]
Zakim, aadd is adambe
15:01:35 [Zakim]
+adambe; got it
15:01:37 [anant]
anant has joined #webrtc
15:01:49 [dom]
Zakim, who's on the call?
15:01:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Cullen_Jennings, ??P15, Dan_Burnett, Jim_Barnett, +1.415.800.aabb, dom, ??P3, stefanh, adambe
15:01:52 [Zakim]
15:01:52 [Zakim]
- +1.415.800.aabb
15:01:59 [Zakim]
15:02:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.541.aaee
15:02:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.961.aaff
15:02:16 [dom]
Zakim, who's noisy?
15:02:21 [stefanh]
Zakim, aadd is adambe
15:02:21 [Zakim]
sorry, stefanh, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
15:02:23 [Zakim]
15:02:25 [fluffy]
Zakim, I am Cullen Jennings
15:02:25 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'I am Cullen Jennings', fluffy
15:02:27 [Zakim]
dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jim_Barnett (37%), ??P14 (23%)
15:02:36 [fluffy]
member:Zakim, I am Cullen_Jennings
15:02:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.800.aagg
15:02:43 [fluffy]
15:02:44 [jesup]
jesup has joined #webrtc
15:02:51 [fluffy]
Zakim, I am Cullen_Jennings
15:02:51 [Zakim]
ok, fluffy, I now associate you with Cullen_Jennings
15:03:01 [anant]
Zakim, aagg is anant
15:03:01 [Zakim]
+anant; got it
15:03:33 [dom]
Zakim, who's on the call?
15:03:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Cullen_Jennings, ??P15, Dan_Burnett, Jim_Barnett, dom, ??P3, stefanh, adambe, ??P16, +1.908.541.aaee, +1.650.961.aaff, anant
15:03:59 [stefanh]
Zakim, I am Stefan_Hakansson
15:03:59 [Zakim]
sorry, stefanh, I do not see a party named 'Stefan_Hakansson'
15:04:05 [tim]
tim has joined #webrtc
15:04:07 [ceyrigno]
ceyrigno has joined #webrtc
15:04:13 [derf]
Zakim, aaff is me
15:04:13 [Zakim]
+derf; got it
15:04:16 [Zakim]
15:04:29 [stefanh]
15:04:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.610.889.aahh
15:04:35 [DanD]
DanD has joined #webrtc
15:04:36 [li]
li has joined #webrtc
15:04:43 [jesup]
aahh is me
15:04:54 [Zakim]
+ +
15:04:54 [anant]
Zakim, aahh is jesup
15:04:54 [Zakim]
+jesup; got it
15:04:58 [tim]
tim has left #webrtc
15:05:07 [Zakim]
+ +47.41.44.aajj
15:05:10 [Zakim]
15:05:25 [dom]
Zakim, aajj is hta
15:05:25 [Zakim]
+hta; got it
15:05:29 [stefanh]
Zakim, who's on the call
15:05:29 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's on the call', stefanh
15:05:40 [nstratford]
Zakim, ??P22 is me
15:05:40 [Zakim]
+nstratford; got it
15:05:42 [timpanton]
timpanton has joined #webrtc
15:05:45 [hta]
hta has joined #webrtc
15:05:46 [stefanh]
Zakim, who's on the call?
15:05:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Cullen_Jennings, ??P15, Dan_Burnett, Jim_Barnett, dom, ??P3, stefanh, adambe, ??P16, +1.908.541.aaee, derf, anant, Dan_Druta, jesup, +, hta,
15:05:52 [Zakim]
... nstratford
15:06:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.575.aakk
15:06:22 [fluffy]
I joined the call but unfortunately I am in another meeting for the first part of this.
15:06:33 [juberti]
juberti has joined #webrtc
15:06:49 [juberti]
Zakim, who is here
15:06:49 [Zakim]
juberti, you need to end that query with '?'
15:06:52 [juberti]
Zakim, who is here?
15:06:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Cullen_Jennings, ??P15, Dan_Burnett, Jim_Barnett, dom, ??P3, stefanh, adambe, ??P16, +1.908.541.aaee, derf, anant, Dan_Druta, jesup, +, hta,
15:06:55 [Zakim]
... nstratford, +1.617.575.aakk
15:06:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see juberti, hta, timpanton, li, DanD, ceyrigno, jesup, anant, leonpo, adambe, Jim, nstratford, stefanh, fluffy, Zakim, RRSAgent, burn, GangLiang, whadar, ed, derf,
15:06:56 [Zakim]
... Josh_Soref, rektide, trackbot, dom
15:07:02 [anant]
I will have to take my leaver at 9am, unfortunately
15:07:05 [juberti]
Zakim, aakk is juberti
15:07:05 [Zakim]
+juberti; got it
15:07:10 [anant]
15:07:28 [dom]
scribenick: juberti
15:07:45 [juberti]
stefan: agenda review
15:08:08 [juberti]
stefan: audio WG request for review
15:08:12 [juberti]
stefan: status of the spec
15:08:18 [juberti]
stefan: any other business
15:08:25 [jesup]
Does someone have a URL for the audio WG request for Review?
15:08:29 [dom]
Topic: Minutes approval
15:08:34 [dom]
-> March 13 minutes
15:08:40 [juberti]
stefan: first action - approve minutes from last meeting
15:08:50 [juberti]
hta: if no objections, they are approved
15:08:52 [dom]
15:09:14 [dom]
-> Open Action items
15:09:35 [dom]
Topic: Action items
15:09:36 [juberti]
stefan: review open actions
15:09:48 [dom]
15:09:48 [trackbot]
ACTION-11 -- Daniel Burnett to add Hints API to API spec -- due 2012-01-12 -- OPEN
15:09:48 [trackbot]
15:09:49 [juberti]
hta: Constraints API status
15:10:13 [juberti]
dan: proposal, hasn't been added to spec, not sure if we have consensus
15:10:40 [juberti]
hta: want to send note to Media Capture task force saying we have sufficient consensus
15:10:48 [dom]
ACTION-11: Constraints and Capabilities API for getUserMedia
15:10:48 [trackbot]
ACTION-11 Add Constraints API to API spec notes added
15:11:03 [dom]
ACTION-13: Constraints and Capabilities API for getUserMedia
15:11:03 [trackbot]
ACTION-13 Add Capabilities API to API spec notes added
15:11:10 [dom]
15:11:10 [trackbot]
ACTION-12 -- Daniel Burnett to add Stats API to API spec -- due 2012-01-20 -- OPEN
15:11:10 [trackbot]
15:11:18 [juberti]
dan: no progress on stats API
15:11:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.902.aall
15:12:13 [dom]
15:12:13 [trackbot]
ACTION-18 -- Stefan Håkansson to contact Web and TV/Media TF to understand if their reqs and views of MediaStreams and Tracks is similar -- due 2011-11-16 -- OPEN
15:12:13 [trackbot]
15:13:00 [dom]
-> Any overlap with webrtc WG?, Stefan Hakansson LK on March 20
15:13:04 [juberti]
stefan: don't think there are they many similarities, Stefan will follow up and see if there is any overlap
15:13:14 [dom]
ACTION-18: see
15:13:14 [trackbot]
ACTION-18 Contact Web and TV/Media TF to understand if their reqs and views of MediaStreams and Tracks is similar notes added
15:14:22 [juberti]
hta: changing numeric constants to be strings
15:14:38 [juberti]
dan: remind me what this is?
15:14:46 [dom]
15:14:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-29 -- Daniel Burnett to change all numeric constants to be enumerated strings -- due 2012-04-01 -- OPEN
15:14:46 [trackbot]
15:14:47 [juberti]
hta: stop using numeric enums, switch to using strings
15:15:03 [juberti]
dan: don't remember the specifics of this
15:15:17 [juberti]
hta: cullen did this in his draft JSEP proposal
15:15:36 [juberti]
hta: dan, will follow up with you on this one
15:16:38 [juberti]
hta: echo cancellation API - is cullen here?
15:17:04 [juberti]
hta: proposed moving mediastream API from PeerConnection to getUserMedia
15:17:31 [juberti]
hta: recent discussion on getting adam/cullen/justin together to discuss JSEP API
15:17:35 [juberti]
hta: end of action list
15:17:47 [dom]
Topic: F2F meetings
15:17:47 [juberti]
stefan: next task is to discuss upcoming f2f meetings
15:18:10 [juberti]
stefan: proposal is to do back-to-back with upcoming IETF interim meeting
15:18:28 [juberti]
someone: where will this meeting be located?
15:18:30 [jesup]
SFO, NYC, BOS, London, STockholm
15:18:34 [anant]
burn: just for reference, ACTION-29 refers to changing all the 'const' as listed in to strings
15:18:36 [dom]
-> Doodle for picking dates for next RTCWeb meeting
15:18:40 [stefanh]
15:18:40 [juberti]
hta: not sure yet - SFO, NYC, BOS, STO
15:18:48 [dom]
15:19:13 [juberti]
anant: how will the venue be chosen?
15:19:28 [juberti]
hta: no specific procedure
15:20:11 [juberti]
anant: can't really fill out the doodle poll until we know what venue will be chosen
15:20:35 [juberti]
hta: doodle poll closes this friday
15:20:58 [juberti]
stefan: next f2f is TPAC in October
15:21:59 [juberti]
hta: interacting with DAP WG and Media Task Force
15:22:08 [dom]
(for the May/June F2F, have we decided for how long? how it would relate to the IETF meeting?)
15:22:16 [juberti]
stefan: so we should aim to have our meetings on the same days
15:22:40 [juberti]
dom: would we have 1 day for the W3C f2f?
15:23:03 [juberti]
stefan: I think the IETF f2f would be 2 days, so the W3C would be just before or after
15:23:14 [juberti]
hta: I think 0.5 days was too short the last time, this time we'll do a whole day
15:23:29 [juberti]
hta: any comments?
15:23:40 [juberti]
stefan: next thing on the agenda
15:23:51 [juberti]
stefan: chairs to report on Media Capture Task Force
15:23:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.678.aamm
15:24:06 [juberti]
stefan: anant has made many proposals for changes and updates
15:24:25 [juberti]
stefan: not much feedback to date. Would like to see more feedback from this community.
15:24:37 [juberti]
stefan: hta, anything from your side?
15:25:03 [juberti]
anant: proposed changes to getUserMedia spec, but only 2-3 people responding
15:25:22 [dom]
i/stefan: chairs to report/Topic: Media Capture
15:25:32 [juberti]
stefan: should we move the definition of MediaStream into the getUserMedia specification?
15:26:03 [juberti]
anant: you could still have a MediaStream even outside of PeerConnection
15:26:15 [juberti]
anant: OTOH, PeerConnections have specific mappings to RTP streams
15:26:25 [dom]
+1 on moving MediaStream to getUserMedia
15:26:25 [juberti]
anant: so need to figure out where this should go
15:26:36 [juberti]
anant: I lean towards putting it in getUserMedia
15:27:03 [juberti]
anant: define the base MediaStream stuff in getUserMedia doc, extensions for realtime usage can go into PeerConnection doc
15:27:42 [juberti]
dom: I think we'll see getUserMedia show up in browsers sooner than PeerConnection, so I think MediaStream should go in that spec
15:28:15 [juberti]
juberti: How would we do this split?
15:28:36 [juberti]
anant: An example could be attributes on the MediaStream for packet loss
15:28:44 [juberti]
anant: which is only relevant to PeerConnection
15:28:53 [jesup]
Seems reasonable to move it to me.
15:29:21 [juberti]
someone: Can we make a standalone for for MediaStream?
15:29:41 [juberti]
anant: we could, but there is overhead - I don't see a case where getUserMedia has stuff that isn't needed in the general case
15:29:46 [anant]
15:30:43 [juberti]
hta: no real dissent voiced
15:30:57 [jesup]
Robert O'Callahan's MediaStream Processing spec also extends MediaStreams slightly - adds currentTime, createProcessor(), createWorkerProcessor()
15:31:26 [juberti]
juberti: I agree that getUserMedia will ship sooner and also be unlikely to have things that aren't generally useful
15:31:37 [juberti]
stefan: I agree with this direction
15:32:05 [juberti]
someone: could we get dropped frames info from the MediaStream?
15:33:12 [juberti]
jesup: what about stats tied to data in the stream
15:33:43 [juberti]
hta: decision to move the spec as described
15:34:09 [hta]
action anant: move MediaStream spec to getUserMedia
15:34:09 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-38 - Move MediaStream spec to getUserMedia [on Anant Narayanan - due 2012-04-17].
15:34:25 [jesup]
We can extend MediaStream in WebRTC (as we already do for localMediaStreams)
15:35:08 [juberti]
stefan: audio WG sent request for review of their spec to the WebRTC list
15:35:19 [dom]
-> Audio WG request for feedback
15:35:29 [juberti]
stefan: not sure if we should accumulate group feedback versus individual feedback. what do people think?
15:35:47 [juberti]
jesup: there are some competing proposals
15:36:12 [juberti]
jesup: proposal from Mozilla ties audio processing/video processing more closely with MediaStreams
15:36:33 [juberti]
hta: one piece of feedback is that we would like to only have to evaluate one proposal
15:37:07 [juberti]
derf: haven't seen satisfactory answers to the concerns that have been raised for real-time usage
15:37:20 [juberti]
jesup: would be nice to process audio streams and video streams in the same framework
15:37:33 [juberti]
jesup: but it doesn't do this right now
15:37:42 [juberti]
derf: proposal doesn't handle synchronization
15:38:04 [juberti]
stefan: suggestion is to do individual feedback
15:38:38 [Zakim]
15:38:39 [jesup]
Synchronization is critical to WebRTC
15:38:46 [dom]
scribenick: dom
15:38:55 [dom]
Topic: Spec status
15:39:09 [dom]
i/stefan: audio WG/Topic: Audio WG feedback request
15:39:17 [dom]
hta: JSEP aligned API - status?
15:39:17 [narm]
narm has joined #webrtc
15:39:31 [dom]
stefanh: should we wait for cullen to join the call?
15:39:42 [dom]
... he said he would be late
15:39:49 [Zakim]
15:39:50 [dom]
hta: let's wait and see
15:39:55 [dom]
... let's move to Data API
15:40:35 [Zakim]
15:41:26 [dom]
dom: regarding constraints, I was suggesting this should be done separately from getUserMedia
15:41:34 [dom]
... due again to the difference in release schedule for that feature
15:41:43 [dom]
... getUserMedia will be shipped without constraints at first
15:41:51 [dom]
... so contraints should be spec-d separately
15:41:55 [dom]
... with the proper hook
15:42:15 [dom]
Dan: I definitely see the need to be able to say "I want a video stream" independently of constraint
15:42:29 [dom]
... but I'm a bit nervous about saying we'll deal with constraints later
15:42:35 [dom]
... constraints are also useful for local user media
15:42:40 [dom]
... e.g. screen resolutions
15:42:57 [dom]
... there may be a need to actually specific some constraints that are camera-related
15:43:00 [jesup]
Agreed on screen resolutions, frame rate, etc
15:43:15 [dom]
Zakim, mute me
15:43:15 [Zakim]
dom should now be muted
15:43:28 [dom]
... some people have a notion of a logical media stream
15:43:56 [dom]
... the encoding e.g. depends on the resolution
15:44:07 [dom]
... so that dependency makes me nervous
15:44:29 [dom]
hta: a logical way forward is to have a place where to list constraints, without specifying constraints
15:44:36 [dom]
dan: I would prefer that
15:44:39 [dom]
Zakim, unmute me
15:44:39 [Zakim]
dom should no longer be muted
15:44:51 [dom]
... as a group, we'll need to define what set of constraints we want to proceed with
15:44:53 [dom]
15:44:58 [dom]
... this may be an empty set
15:45:09 [dom]
... e.g. no constraints are necessary for the local case
15:45:18 [dom]
s/are/may be/
15:45:27 [dom]
Randell: this seems reasonable to me
15:45:47 [dom]
... this also exposes the fact that we haven't talked about how to modify the parameters of a source after having obtained it from getUserMEdia
15:45:57 [dom]
... e.G. changing resolution of framerate from an existing stream
15:46:09 [dom]
... at this time, the only way to do that is to get a different getUserMedia stream
15:46:26 [dom]
... I would think you would want to be able to modify the stream you're getting
15:46:48 [dom]
dan: so you're thinking we could still use constraints but it would be a new set of constraints that would replace the existing ones on an existing stream
15:46:59 [dom]
... I don't know if that cover all cases, but it covers some of them for sure
15:47:08 [dom]
... that means you don't have to drop your stream to get a new one
15:47:23 [dom]
... you want to make sure you don't tear down a number of states that would have to be rebuilt
15:47:33 [dom]
dan: some constraints would not require a new persmission check; some might
15:47:39 [dom]
15:47:51 [dom]
... but that doesn't mean we wouldn't want to make that kind of modification
15:50:45 [dom]
dom: no question about the need for constraints, but clearly this adds complexity, possible another API for modifying streams
15:51:00 [dom]
... all of which is unlikely to be shipped as early as getUserMedia
15:51:12 [dom]
... so we should focus on getUserMedia first, constraints later
15:51:34 [dom]
dan: Adam's proposal is fine with me; but if we do start adding hints as others have suggested, then I want to have constraints added in the first phase
15:51:45 [dom]
... since hints are exactly what constraints are supposed to address
15:51:53 [dom]
s/is fine/might be acceptable/
15:52:03 [dom]
dan: rich has been suggesting having hints
15:52:19 [dom]
randell: e.g. a way to express preference of resolution vs framerate
15:52:46 [dom]
justin: we have specific use cases of what we want to do
15:53:05 [dom]
... if we don't think that hints solve our use cases, then that doesn't seem like a worthy proposal
15:53:14 [dom]
stefanh: hints seems to be equivalent to optional constraints
15:53:36 [dom]
randell: I haven't thought enough about this; I don't have an opinion on the matter at this point
15:53:55 [dom]
hta: I haven't see any evidence that hints would differ from optional constraints
15:54:23 [dom]
dan: so it sounds like there is agreement for the people on this call that any request for hints can most likely be satisfied with a constraints structure
15:54:45 [dom]
... not working on constraints might work if we don't get hints back in
15:54:56 [dom]
... how would this work in practice?
15:55:27 [dom]
... Adam's proposal wasn't to do away with constraints
15:55:56 [dom]
Adam: my proposal was to add the constraints object as a third property of the first param in getUserMedia
15:56:13 [dom]
... to break the dependency between getUserMedia and constraints definitions
15:57:08 [anant]
I apologize, I have to leave for another meeting that starts in 5 minutes, I will review minutes later to see what I missed.
15:57:22 [Zakim]
15:58:24 [Zakim]
15:58:55 [fluffy]
I have joined the call again
15:59:36 [dom]
dom: my idea was not to stop work on constraints, but move it to a parallel work item with less attention from the group
15:59:48 [dom]
... we probably need to look a concrete integration proposals off-line
16:00:05 [dom]
... but the idea was that constraints would be a third property in the mediastreamoptions object
16:00:20 [dom]
... that browsers should block on if they can't interpret it
16:00:42 [dom]
dan: that sounds like fine if we agree on the dictionary structure
16:01:03 [dom]
... the "fail on unknown" constraint sounds like approach to forward-compatibility
16:01:29 [dom]
cullen: given that audio and video are completely trivial to specify, shouldn't we just do that?
16:03:09 [dom]
dom: it's a bit hard to follow these suggestions without concrete proposals
16:03:11 [GangLiang_]
GangLiang_ has joined #webrtc
16:03:37 [dom]
justin: shipping getUserMEdia with just VGA resolution would be very useful
16:03:49 [dom]
Adam: @@@
16:04:07 [dom]
Dan: I don't think the group will agree that VGA only is the right way to start
16:04:39 [dom]
Adam: if the options is getting VGA in two months or wait another year for other options, people will want VGA first
16:05:17 [dom]
Justin: I'm not sure that getting resolutions right is that trivial, so it would probably take a while
16:06:01 [dom]
Cullen: my only proposal that selecting audio and video streams would themselves be designed as constraints
16:06:20 [dom]
Randell: I'm concerned that we spend a lot of time about designing an API for setting static parameters
16:06:40 [dom]
... sounds like we're missing a big aspect of this
16:06:54 [dom]
... The solution might not be to design a overall constraints API right now
16:07:10 [dom]
... but rather to define a way to have a way to change the parameters of an existing media stream
16:07:37 [dom]
... then we don't have to solve the issue at the "creation-time"
16:07:49 [dom]
Dan: I see the two as the same problem
16:08:28 [dom]
... the constraints approach has two usefulness: don't do anything if I don't get this; how strongly the dev cares about a particular setting
16:08:51 [dom]
Randell: yes, but it's not obvious that this needs to be hardset in the algorithm in the spec
16:09:00 [dom]
... rather than by code in the Web app itself
16:09:09 [dom]
s/hardset/hard set/
16:09:34 [dom]
Cullen: this is not a constraint language by any definition
16:09:44 [adambe]
16:10:02 [dom]
EKR: what are you allowed to say in this language? I've only skimmed it some time ago
16:10:19 [dom]
dan: it allows you to set min/max values for a number of properties (e.g. aspect ratio, framerate, ...)
16:10:29 [dom]
EKR: will this metastasized?
16:10:40 [dom]
... how can someone express something that hasn't been defined?
16:10:53 [dom]
Randell: let's take a video source that has an embedded encoder in it
16:11:03 [dom]
... that means you would have to specify constraint for that encoder as well
16:11:21 [dom]
dan: as an app dev, you only have to specify what you care about
16:11:35 [dom]
... The browser will have to work out how to satisfy your requirements
16:11:58 [dom]
Randell: you're defining a constraints language for this, and say that the app developer only has to deal with this if he cares about it
16:12:09 [dom]
... but what if he cares? how does he deal with that case?
16:12:20 [dom]
dan: I don't know that we can avoid the lower level code in that case
16:12:41 [dom]
... constraints allow for a high level approach for most developers needs
16:13:19 [dom]
Randell: I don't have a problem with defining a constraint language if we want one
16:13:24 [dom]
... if it convers everything we need
16:13:30 [dom]
16:13:50 [dom]
... but I don't want it to forbid getting access to important things that applications will want to access, e.g. setting resolution
16:14:04 [dom]
... we can get by without it, but the pressure to get it will be high
16:14:49 [dom]
justin: not sure why VGA won't be sufficient for v1?
16:14:55 [dom]
Cullen: mobile won't do it
16:15:04 [dom]
justin: this could be the highest thing to ask for
16:15:13 [dom]
hta: this is a more detailed discussion than we have had on the list
16:15:21 [dom]
... With 15 minutes left, we need to return to JSEP
16:15:39 [dom]
justin: it seems reasonable to have an initial constraint, plus an API to change constraints
16:15:57 [dom]
dan: the proposal was never to suggest we shouldn't let change constraints
16:16:18 [dom]
... the proposal only gives examples of constraints; we would need to define the first set of constraints
16:16:44 [dom]
... All of these are great discussions points: what constraints in the first version? how can we change streams along the way? can it be done using the same API?
16:17:02 [dom]
... i.e. using the same data structure
16:17:15 [dom]
dom: how do we move forward with this?
16:17:25 [dom]
hta: any action items?
16:18:09 [dom]
hta: earlier in the call there was an action item about incorporating capabilities in the editors draft of getUserMedia
16:18:30 [dom]
dan: there are some modifications that I need to bring to my proposal based on what Adam proposed; or maybe based on Cullen's proposal
16:18:39 [dom]
... I'm happy to do that and send an updated proposal
16:18:49 [dom]
... please read it then :)
16:19:32 [dom]
hta: so Adam and Cullen, will you suggest modifications to Dan's proposal?
16:19:37 [dom]
dan: Adam already did
16:19:48 [dom]
... although you referenced the registry rather than my proposal
16:20:35 [dom]
ACTION: Dan to send an updated Capabilities proposal to Media Capture Task Force
16:20:35 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Dan
16:20:35 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ddruta, dburnett, dromasca)
16:20:42 [dom]
ACTION: burnett to send an updated Capabilities proposal to Media Capture Task Force
16:20:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-39 - Send an updated Capabilities proposal to Media Capture Task Force [on Daniel Burnett - due 2012-04-17].
16:22:15 [dom]
16:22:33 [dom]
stefanh: we've only had limited feedback on which of the proposals for moving forward with JSEP
16:23:00 [dom]
cullen: current status is that we're trying to find a time with Justin, Adam and me to discuss our proposals in more details
16:23:19 [dom]
... I've always characterized the two proposals by the number of function calls
16:23:29 [dom]
... but this was a flawed understanding apparently
16:23:42 [dom]
... we haven't looked at the different important characteristics
16:23:54 [dom]
... nothing has moved during IETF
16:24:01 [dom]
... but we're getting back on track now
16:24:59 [dom]
dom: getting this list of differences would also help the rest of us know which proposal we are likely to prefer :)
16:25:14 [dom]
... unless it is sufficient to make you guys decide to merge into one proposal
16:25:53 [dom]
justin: @@@
16:26:05 [dom]
... the other change relates to what happens when you call addStream
16:26:18 [dom]
... does the local description change right away? or do you have install it with setLocalDescription?
16:26:33 [dom]
... implicit update seemed like an easy win
16:26:51 [dom]
... but I need to look at what happens if the state machine is not in the right state when receiving an offer
16:27:08 [dom]
... Once we resolve this, we could have a draft of a merged proposal
16:27:36 [dom]
Cullen: my proposal lets you change the SDP when you add a stream
16:27:37 [Zakim]
16:27:40 [dom]
... e.G. to remove a codec
16:27:48 [dom]
... this seems an important feature that people wants
16:28:03 [dom]
Justin: you could always replace the SDP and setLocalDescription with an updated SDP
16:28:55 [Zakim]
16:29:22 [dom]
hta: there is also a difference in terms of initiative
16:29:36 [dom]
... in Adam's proposal, the application just reacts to what the browser does
16:29:48 [dom]
... in the other proposal, you're on your own to manage the whole ice state machine
16:30:06 [dom]
Adam: the browser doesn't really do anything if the developer doesn't do anything
16:30:49 [Zakim]
16:31:17 [dom]
hta: in the JSEP API, if the application developer decides that he has created a PeerConnection and connected two media streams to it, and want to wait for a while until a specific event
16:31:30 [dom]
... in the JSEP proposal, you can just not call createOffer()
16:31:46 [dom]
... in the other proposal, there will be an onsignaling callback — what should you do about it?
16:32:00 [dom]
stefanh: the application could still wait to call the addStream
16:32:11 [dom]
adam: addStream is still in the control of the JavaScript
16:32:54 [dom]
hta: the difference in philosophy is that in one case you get callbacks and you respond to that, in the other you have to manage this on your own
16:33:16 [dom]
justin: there were comments that getting callbacks at random times create weird bugs
16:33:55 [dom]
stefanh: I want to ensure that cullen, adam and justin have this meeting next Monday
16:34:12 [dom]
... that meeting should either produce a list of differences, or a merged proposal in a reasonable amount of time
16:34:26 [dom]
justin: I think we've enumarated the main differences of the two APIs
16:34:57 [dom]
adam: in the browser, everything is asynchronous
16:35:35 [dom]
cullen: so our meeting will help the discussions; but I suspect we'll still be back to multiple orthogonal decisions
16:35:48 [dom]
... I wouldn't be surprised that we will need another phone call to go through this
16:36:00 [dom]
stefanh: yes; that would be a better informed phone call though
16:36:12 [dom]
adam: clearly the first step is for the 3 of us to better understand the two proposals
16:37:10 [dom]
Randell: I'll bring the Data API on the list
16:37:19 [dom]
stefanh: and implementation feedback would be very welcome as well
16:37:22 [Zakim]
- +1.408.902.aall
16:37:23 [Zakim]
16:37:25 [Zakim]
- +1.650.678.aamm
16:37:26 [Zakim]
16:37:26 [Zakim]
16:37:27 [Zakim]
16:37:27 [Zakim]
16:37:28 [Zakim]
16:37:28 [Zakim]
16:37:31 [Zakim]
16:37:32 [Zakim]
16:37:35 [Zakim]
16:37:35 [adambe]
adambe has left #webrtc
16:37:36 [Zakim]
- +1.908.541.aaee
16:37:39 [Zakim]
16:37:43 [Zakim]
16:40:02 [dom]
Zakim, who's on the call?
16:40:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +
16:40:05 [dom]
Zakim, drop aaii
16:40:05 [Zakim]
+ is being disconnected
16:40:07 [Zakim]
UW_Web RTC()11:00AM has ended
16:40:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.403.244.aaaa, Dan_Burnett, Cullen_Jennings, Jim_Barnett, +1.415.800.aabb, dom, +, stefanh, +, adambe, +1.908.541.aaee,
16:40:07 [Zakim]
... +1.650.961.aaff, +1.415.800.aagg, anant, derf, Dan_Druta, +1.610.889.aahh, +, jesup, +47.41.44.aajj, hta, nstratford, +1.617.575.aakk, juberti, +1.408.902.aall,
16:40:07 [Zakim]
... +1.650.678.aamm, Narm_Gadiraju
16:40:11 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:40:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dom
18:55:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webrtc
19:10:33 [jesup]
jesup has left #webrtc
20:44:07 [anant]
anant has joined #webrtc