IRC log of webrtc on 2013-12-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:23:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webrtc
15:23:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:23:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:23:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webrtc
15:23:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be RTC
15:23:08 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see UW_WebRTC()11:00AM scheduled to start in 37 minutes
15:23:09 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Real-Time Communications Working Group Teleconference
15:23:09 [trackbot]
Date: 19 December 2013
15:43:52 [burn]
burn has joined #webrtc
15:48:02 [stefanh]
stefanh has joined #webrtc
15:50:31 [fluffy]
fluffy has joined #webrtc
15:50:59 [mt]
mt has joined #webrtc
15:53:36 [Zakim]
UW_WebRTC()11:00AM has now started
15:53:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.403.244.aaaa
15:54:28 [jib]
jib has joined #webrtc
15:55:30 [fluffy]
zakim, i am aaaa
15:55:30 [Zakim]
+fluffy; got it
15:55:43 [fluffy]
zakim, who is here
15:55:43 [Zakim]
fluffy, you need to end that query with '?'
15:55:59 [fluffy]
zakim, who is here?
15:55:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fluffy
15:56:01 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jib, mt, fluffy, stefanh, burn, Zakim, RRSAgent, GangLiang, DanE, dom, Josh_Soref, slightlyoff, timeless, adam, heath, schuki, derf, trackbot, decadance, ed, j_a
15:57:06 [Zakim]
15:57:18 [burn]
zakim, I am Dan_Burnett
15:57:18 [Zakim]
ok, burn, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett
15:57:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.267.934.aabb
15:58:04 [jib]
zakim: i am aabb
15:58:32 [Zakim]
15:58:50 [Zakim]
15:59:04 [mt]
zakim, I am [IPcaller]
15:59:04 [Zakim]
ok, mt, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:59:06 [burn]
zakim, nick jib is aabb
15:59:06 [Zakim]
+burn; got it
15:59:28 [burn]
zakim, I am Dan_Burnett
15:59:28 [Zakim]
ok, burn, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett
15:59:30 [stefanh]
zakim, who is there?
15:59:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, stefanh.
15:59:40 [Zakim]
15:59:42 [AndyH]
AndyH has joined #webrtc
15:59:44 [stefanh]
zakim, who is here?
15:59:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, burn, stefanh, [IPcaller], Stephane_Cazeaux
15:59:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AndyH, jib, mt, fluffy, stefanh, burn, Zakim, RRSAgent, GangLiang, DanE, dom, Josh_Soref, slightlyoff, timeless, adam, heath, schuki, derf, trackbot, decadance, ed,
15:59:47 [Zakim]
... j_a
15:59:49 [Zakim]
15:59:54 [Zakim]
+ +1.561.923.aacc
16:00:15 [Zakim]
16:00:15 [stephane]
stephane has joined #webrtc
16:00:17 [dom]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
16:00:18 [Zakim]
+dom; got it
16:00:41 [Dini]
Dini has joined #webrtc
16:00:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.407.286.aadd
16:01:33 [Zakim]
+ +
16:01:49 [dom]
Zakim, burn is really jib
16:01:49 [Zakim]
+jib; got it
16:01:52 [JimBarnett]
JimBarnett has joined #webrtc
16:01:55 [Zakim]
16:01:55 [jib]
16:02:05 [Zakim]
+ +44.190.881.aaff
16:02:12 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webrtc
16:02:19 [Zakim]
16:02:20 [adambe]
adambe has joined #webrtc
16:02:21 [ekr]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, jib, stefanh, [IPcaller], Stephane_Cazeaux, Jim_Barnett, +1.561.923.aacc, dom, +1.407.286.aadd, +, [Mozilla],
16:02:21 [Zakim]
... +44.190.881.aaff, [Mozilla.a]
16:02:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see adambe, ekr, JimBarnett, Dini, stephane, AndyH, jib, mt, fluffy, stefanh, burn, Zakim, RRSAgent, GangLiang, DanE, dom, Josh_Soref, slightlyoff, timeless, adam, heath,
16:02:23 [Zakim]
... schuki, derf, trackbot, decadance, ed, j_a
16:02:25 [adam]
Zakim, Mozilla.a is me
16:02:25 [Zakim]
+adam; got it
16:02:44 [jesup]
jesup has joined #webrtc
16:02:45 [Dini]
+1.407.286.aadd is Dini
16:02:52 [jib]
zakim, i am aabb
16:02:52 [Zakim]
sorry, jib, I do not see a party named 'aabb'
16:02:55 [Zakim]
+ +
16:03:02 [Dini]
zakim +1.407.286.aadd is Dini
16:03:18 [ekr]
zakim, Mozilla is me
16:03:18 [Zakim]
+ekr; got it
16:03:18 [jib]
burn: thanks
16:04:03 [stephane]
zakim, Stephane_Cazeaux is me
16:04:05 [Zakim]
+stephane; got it
16:04:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.857.288.aahh
16:04:15 [AndyH]
+441908811.aaff is AndyH
16:04:20 [Zakim]
16:04:31 [juberti]
juberti has joined #webrtc
16:04:52 [Dini]
zakim, +1.561.923.aacc is me
16:04:52 [Zakim]
+Dini; got it
16:04:58 [burn]
zakim, aaff is AndyH
16:04:58 [Zakim]
+AndyH; got it
16:05:19 [juberti]
Zakim, who's here/
16:05:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's here/', juberti
16:05:22 [juberti]
Zakim, who's here?
16:05:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, jib, stefanh, [IPcaller], stephane, Jim_Barnett, Dini, dom, +1.407.286.aadd, +, ekr, AndyH, adam, +,
16:05:25 [Zakim]
... +1.857.288.aahh, jesup
16:05:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see juberti, jesup, adambe, ekr, JimBarnett, Dini, stephane, AndyH, jib, mt, fluffy, stefanh, burn, Zakim, RRSAgent, GangLiang, DanE, dom, Josh_Soref, slightlyoff,
16:05:25 [Zakim]
... timeless, adam, heath, schuki, derf, trackbot, decadance, ed, j_a
16:05:26 [mreavy]
mreavy has joined #webrtc
16:05:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.610.aaii
16:05:42 [juberti]
Zakim, aahh is juberti
16:05:42 [Zakim]
+juberti; got it
16:06:08 [hta]
hta has joined #webrtc
16:06:14 [hta]
Now it works....
16:06:22 [hta]
zakim, who is here?
16:06:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, jib, stefanh, [IPcaller], stephane, Jim_Barnett, Dini, dom, +1.407.286.aadd, +, ekr, AndyH, adam, +, juberti,
16:06:25 [Zakim]
... jesup, +1.425.610.aaii
16:06:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see hta, mreavy, juberti, jesup, adambe, ekr, JimBarnett, Dini, stephane, AndyH, jib, mt, fluffy, stefanh, burn, Zakim, RRSAgent, GangLiang, DanE, dom, Josh_Soref,
16:06:25 [Zakim]
... slightlyoff, timeless, adam, heath, schuki, derf, trackbot, decadance
16:06:44 [hta]
zakim, aadd is me
16:06:44 [Zakim]
+hta; got it
16:06:46 [DanE]
zakim, i am aadd
16:06:46 [Zakim]
sorry, DanE, I do not see a party named 'aadd'
16:07:05 [stefanh]
scribenick adambe
16:07:24 [Zakim]
16:07:47 [dom_]
dom_ has joined #webrtc
16:08:14 [fluffy]
16:08:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.908.541.aajj
16:08:23 [hta]
zakim, who is talking?
16:08:33 [Zakim]
hta, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jim_Barnett (4%), +1.908.541.aajj (4%), + (94%), AndyH (21%), +1.425.610.aaii (23%)
16:09:01 [stefanh]
16:09:10 [Mary_Barnes]
Mary_Barnes has joined #webrtc
16:09:15 [hta]
zakim, i am aaii
16:09:15 [Zakim]
+hta; got it
16:09:16 [adambe]
stefanh: first we should look at the agenda from the last meeting
16:09:27 [adambe]
... ops, wrong link
16:09:28 [hta]
zakim, who is here?
16:09:28 [Zakim]
16:09:28 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, jib, stefanh, [IPcaller], stephane, Jim_Barnett, Dini, hta, +, ekr, AndyH, adam, +, juberti, jesup, hta.a,
16:09:28 [Zakim]
... +1.908.541.aajj, Dan.a
16:09:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Mary_Barnes, dom, hta, mreavy, juberti, jesup, adambe, ekr, JimBarnett, Dini, stephane, AndyH, jib, mt, fluffy, stefanh, burn, Zakim, RRSAgent, GangLiang, DanE,
16:09:30 [Zakim]
... Josh_Soref, slightlyoff, timeless, adam, heath, schuki, derf, trackbot
16:09:40 [stefanh]
correction, agenda :
16:09:46 [Zakim]
16:09:48 [hta]
how do we tell zakim that I was wrong about the first hta?
16:09:56 [ianatha]
ianatha has joined #webrtc
16:09:58 [li]
li has joined #webrtc
16:10:06 [Zakim]
+ +1.940.735.aakk
16:10:15 [adambe]
... we will spend the majority of the meeting discussing the what's in/out in version 1
16:10:26 [dromasca]
dromasca has joined #webrtc
16:10:29 [adambe]
... then we need to discuss our next f2f
16:10:37 [adambe]
fluffy: I'm not happy with this process
16:10:45 [adambe]
stefanh: that's fine
16:11:09 [stefanh]
minutes last meeting:
16:11:20 [dom]
16:11:21 [adambe]
fluffy: the minutes does not reflect what I've said in those meeting-
16:11:46 [adambe]
juberti: fluffy, is there anything particular?
16:11:57 [dom]
Zakim, hta.a is really harald
16:11:57 [Zakim]
+harald; got it
16:12:04 [adambe]
fluffy: the meetings does not reflect what I said
16:12:09 [adambe]
ekr: why can't we record?
16:12:15 [adambe]
*me agrees with ekr
16:12:40 [adambe]
dom: I don't remember the reasons for not recording
16:12:54 [dom]
zakim, hta is really DanE
16:12:54 [Zakim]
+DanE; got it
16:12:58 [dom]
Zakim, harald is really hta
16:12:58 [Zakim]
+hta; got it
16:13:19 [adambe]
ekr: the process with a minute taker is bad since the minute taker can't participate in the discussion
16:14:17 [adambe]
dom: I can look into recording again
16:14:38 [adambe]
ekr: we could use a recording to fix the minutes
16:15:26 [adambe]
dom: my experience is that you don't get a good result with an external minute taker for technical discussions
16:15:38 [ekr]
No criticism to Adam,but I note that his notes don't even remotely reflect what I just said :)
16:15:49 [adambe]
stefanh: anyone objecting to aproving the minutes?
16:15:54 [adambe]
fluffy: I'm not objecting
16:15:58 [ekr]
probably because trying to type what people say, especially me, is hard
16:16:05 [adambe]
stefanh: the minutes are approved
16:16:11 [ekr]
jesup: exactly why I propose a recording
16:16:18 [Zakim]
16:16:24 [adambe]
stefanh: let's move on to the scoping discussion
16:16:24 [Zakim]
16:16:37 [adambe]
... this was brought up by juberti
16:16:40 [juberti]
Zakim, who's here?
16:16:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, jib, stefanh, [IPcaller], stephane, Jim_Barnett, Dini, DanE, +, ekr, AndyH, adam, +, jesup, hta,
16:16:44 [Zakim]
... +1.908.541.aajj, Dan.a, dom, +1.940.735.aakk, garykac
16:16:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dromasca, li, ianatha, Mary_Barnes, dom, hta, mreavy, juberti, jesup, adambe, ekr, JimBarnett, Dini, stephane, AndyH, jib, mt, fluffy, stefanh, burn, Zakim, RRSAgent,
16:16:44 [Zakim]
... GangLiang, DanE, Josh_Soref, slightlyoff, timeless, adam, heath
16:17:29 [adambe]
... justin got an action, together with me, ekr and hta to produce a list that we could discuss around
16:17:53 [adambe]
fluffy: asks for clarification around the process around producing the material for discussion
16:18:24 [adambe]
... we need to discuss the list as well
16:18:46 [adambe]
... the current list reopens items that we have ruled out before
16:19:13 [adambe]
... there are several items on this list that doesn't make sense
16:19:18 [stefanh]
the "list" discussed:
16:19:23 [ekr]
16:20:11 [adambe]
juberti: the list consists of items that we have discussed but isn't in the spec right now
16:20:54 [fluffy]
16:20:55 [adambe]
fluffy: this is not a rational way to discuss what should be in or out
16:21:00 [adambe]
ekr: queue please
16:21:24 [adambe]
... for the record, while I was involved in this.. my involvement was to add items to list
16:21:41 [hta]
16:21:48 [adambe]
... I don't agree with the recommendations
16:21:55 [burn]
16:22:14 [ekr]
16:22:46 [adambe]
hta: a few points, juberti and ekr need to take some blame for items on the list
16:22:57 [adambe]
... stefanh and me are as well
16:23:35 [adambe]
... I think what we have come up with makes sense
16:23:54 [adambe]
... it makes sense to take a position to the items in the list
16:24:01 [dom]
ack hta
16:24:05 [fluffy]
16:24:07 [fluffy]
16:24:09 [juberti]
16:24:16 [ekr]
16:24:19 [adambe]
... if something needs to be in the spec, or if an item separate spec
16:24:27 [jesup]
16:25:14 [dom]
ack Dan_Burnett
16:25:25 [dom]
Zakim, Dan_Burnett is really burn
16:25:25 [Zakim]
+burn; got it
16:25:56 [adambe]
stefanh: correction, ekr and juberti are responsible for proposing items on the list and hta and me are responsible for the proposed resolutions
16:26:01 [hta]
16:26:04 [hta]
16:26:08 [adambe]
burn: we can discuss the colums, the rows
16:26:17 [adambe]
... the colums are fine
16:26:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.649.aall
16:29:11 [adambe]
... it's unfortunate that anything is listed under the the desicion column
16:29:42 [adam]
16:29:43 [dom]
+1 to burn fwiw
16:29:56 [adambe]
... we should talk about the columns first, and then move on to the rows
16:30:12 [hta]
Dom, this is the one from 3 days ago - can you post the link to the one Stefan posted today?
16:30:18 [hta]
16:30:42 [dom]
-> Latest spreadsheet on scoping discussion
16:30:57 [adambe]
fluffy: if something is implemented is interesting
16:31:08 [adambe]
... but also if something is very useful
16:31:13 [dom]
q+ to comment on whether it is needed is different from when it is needed
16:31:24 [adambe]
... the decision column should be blanked out
16:31:37 [adambe]
... we should think about what makes sense as rows
16:31:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.604.210.aamm
16:32:17 [adambe]
... I expect us to have mailing list discussion about rows before making a decision
16:32:40 [adambe]
... we should classify the rows
16:33:17 [dom]
ack fluffy
16:33:21 [ekr]
hta: you may want to get on the queue then
16:33:24 [hta]
16:33:27 [adambe]
... I'd like to see real discussion about the rows so we can determine what should be in or out
16:33:36 [dom]
ack juberti
16:34:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.613.435.aann
16:34:16 [adambe]
juberti: to compile this list, I've taken everything we talked about in Seattle
16:34:56 [adambe]
... and the last two months
16:35:22 [adambe]
ekr: I'm willing to take some blame for the list
16:36:00 [fluffy]
16:36:38 [dom]
ack ekr
16:36:49 [fluffy]
I would like to note in the minutes, that once again, none of the points I made seems to make to the minutes
16:37:03 [dom]
fluffy, you should fix the minutes by summarizing what you said then
16:37:15 [Zakim]
16:37:22 [fluffy]
no, I am participating in the meeeting
16:38:04 [ekr]
I see that my points aren't in the minutes either
16:38:13 [adambe]
jesup: the guiding principle should not be that we need to have a stable version at some date
16:38:19 [burn]
16:38:26 [adambe]
... we need to make a version that is useful for people
16:38:33 [juberti]
16:38:35 [ekr]
to try to recap: the relevant thing to discuss is what the principles are for making this decision, not spending small number of seconds on each issue
16:38:48 [dom]
ack jesup
16:38:59 [fluffy]
+1 on mimimimim useful system
16:39:16 [ekr]
+1 to jesup, obviously, since that's what I was trying to say
16:39:30 [ekr]
… and maybe actually did say though it wasn't minuted
16:40:04 [stefanh]
Dom: We all agree that we need to build a useful system, the question is what is a useful system
16:40:24 [burn]
+1 to ekr for today's discussion should be about principles.
16:40:40 [stefanh]
...are we at the stage were we can build useful syst ontop of webrtc, or are do we need much more time
16:40:55 [stefanh]
... we need agreement on what we call useful
16:41:02 [dom]
scribenick: dom
16:41:05 [fluffy]
16:41:11 [dom]
ack hta
16:41:11 [ekr]
ack: dom
16:41:16 [ekr]
ack dom
16:41:16 [Zakim]
dom, you wanted to comment on whether it is needed is different from when it is needed
16:41:29 [dom]
hta: cullen, you're suggesting is almost exactly what we've been doing for the last 3 years
16:41:30 [fluffy]
16:41:35 [dom]
... and we're not converging
16:42:06 [dom]
... I suggest we change mode: suggestions for things that are not needed for a minimal useful system go to a separate spec if possible
16:42:08 [ekr]
16:42:09 [jesup]
jesup: We need a minimum useful system, not just a working system. The date should not be the driving principle, usefulness should or we get into the weeds with non-spec extensions. The date should fall where it does; we can constrain it to *minimum* useful to get it out ASAP, but it must be useful.
16:42:10 [stefanh]
16:42:16 [Zakim]
- +1.919.649.aall
16:42:22 [dom]
... and that we try to make decisions sooner rather than later
16:42:24 [jesup]
that was a summary of what I said, as it wasn't scribed
16:42:41 [dom]
... even if we need to change some of these decisions later
16:42:51 [dom]
... when we go beyond the principles discussion, I would like to walk through the list of what the chairs think what the decision should be
16:43:11 [steely_glint]
steely_glint has joined #webrtc
16:43:15 [dom]
... and focus the discussion instead on where there is real disagreement
16:43:30 [hta]
16:43:32 [dom]
... we're here to make decisions, not to discuss how to make them
16:43:32 [hta]
16:43:35 [dom]
ack burn
16:43:41 [mt]
16:43:42 [dom]
burn: I largely agree with harald
16:43:43 [mt]
16:43:54 [dom]
... we can discuss whether we have enough information to make a decision (what the columns are about)
16:44:05 [dom]
... I feel the columns provide a reasonable amount of info
16:44:11 [dom]
... I would like to hear the chairs recommendations
16:44:19 [dom]
... to understand whether disagreement is on few or many points
16:44:49 [dom]
... any discussion on defining a "useful" system will be challenging
16:44:58 [dom]
... people are building useful things with what is available in implementations today (even limited to what in spec)
16:45:13 [dom]
... but it's tricky to get agreement on what something useful is
16:45:20 [dom]
... but we all want to get this done
16:45:34 [dom]
... and I think we can get there by focusing on where there are disagreements on the chairs proposals
16:45:52 [dom]
juberti: hta and burn said most of what I meant to say
16:46:02 [dom]
... people out there want to see stability in the existing stuff they're using
16:46:10 [dom]
... esp. on things that could make or break their app
16:46:27 [dom]
... having a 1.0 faster
16:46:30 [Erik]
Erik has joined #WebRTC
16:46:40 [dom]
... things on which we don't have a proposal for, they seem unlikely candidates for 1.0
16:46:59 [dom]
fluffy: no disagreement on the high level points that have been made
16:47:04 [rraymond]
rraymond has joined #webrtc
16:47:12 [mt]
16:47:20 [ekr]
ack juberti
16:47:21 [dom]
... the current demos (I haven't seen production quality stuff)
16:47:24 [ekr]
ack fluffy
16:47:34 [dom]
... many of the fields in the spread sheet seems to be wrong
16:48:15 [dom]
... I object to chairs asserting what we should do; they should ask the WG
16:48:34 [dom]
stefanh: the purpose of this list is to propose a way forward, not to impose it
16:48:48 [dom]
fluffy: but I'm likely to disagree with most
16:48:56 [dom]
stefanh: then you should let us know when we get to that
16:49:06 [dom]
fluffy: we need to verify the validity of the assessment
16:49:12 [dom]
... also, what do you mean by "in the spec"?
16:49:19 [fluffy]
16:49:23 [dom]
stefanh: we'll talk about that when we're done with the principles discussion
16:49:23 [mt]
ack ekr
16:49:36 [dom]
ekr: I agree it would be nice to get closure
16:49:54 [dom]
... we keep rediscussing topics during our meetings
16:50:10 [dom]
... but you don't repair this by cutting stuff as "closed"
16:50:23 [dom]
... this gets repaired by setting a clearer agenda with clearly minuted resolutions
16:50:35 [dom]
... with agendas that focus on less items
16:50:41 [dom]
... with the relevant set of people
16:50:59 [dom]
... but freezing in 1.0 what is stable today isn't the way to do that
16:51:16 [dom]
... for devs that want stability, we need to go through the list of features to make a list of priority
16:51:39 [dom]
... the current API prevents a whole class of apps; e.g. stream rejection prevents video calls on lousy connections
16:51:48 [fluffy]
16:51:57 [dom]
... if people thinks the current API is sufficient for real world apps, they're crazy
16:52:08 [dom]
stefanh: it's difficult to define a "useful" system
16:52:22 [dom]
... but if you go down the use case documents, most of them can be done with the spec as it is today
16:52:30 [ekr]
stefanh, in that case, the problem is the use case document
16:52:48 [ekr]
since, as I say, we don't even let you meet 1:1 calls where one side wants video and the other side can't support it
16:52:48 [ekr]
16:52:56 [dom]
... it's only screen sharing that is currently not doable
16:53:00 [mt]
ack stefanh
16:53:10 [fluffy]
16:53:19 [dom]
Martin: ekr voiced a lot of what I wanted to say
16:53:23 [dom]
ack IPcaller
16:53:31 [dom]
ack [IPcaller]
16:53:31 [ekr]
zakim, IPcaller has martin
16:53:32 [Zakim]
+martin; got it
16:53:35 [Zakim]
16:53:50 [dom]
martin: we need to get some sort of closure on issues
16:53:55 [dom]
... we need to identify on what we do next and do it
16:54:14 [dom]
... there are so many things we want to do - the chairs should guide us on to closing specific issues
16:54:17 [fluffy]
16:54:25 [dom]
... lots of proposals are made, lots of discussion and noise
16:54:30 [dom]
... and then, no decisions are made
16:54:54 [dom]
... we should keep working on the most important things until we feel we have done the ones we feel the most important
16:55:14 [dom]
ekr: re we can already implement the use cases, I think this illustrates that the use cases are insufficient
16:55:21 [dom]
... e.g. the video call with one-way video
16:55:24 [stefanh]
16:55:39 [dom]
... currently, you can't reject a video
16:56:06 [fluffy]
16:56:07 [dom]
ack ekr
16:56:35 [adam]
16:56:37 [dom]
adambe: are you saying that we can't reject video with the current signaling?
16:56:44 [ekr]
16:57:07 [dom]
... we don't need to cram everything in signalling
16:57:11 [dom]
q- adam
16:57:14 [dom]
ack ekr
16:57:29 [dom]
ekr: the whole point of offer/answer was to do negotiate stuff
16:57:49 [adam]
16:57:52 [mt]
q- fluffy
16:58:03 [dom]
... if you're saying this can be done outside the offer/answer model, this isn't providing a solution
16:58:21 [dom]
fluffy: I agree with Martin that we need to get on closure on issues
16:58:32 [dom]
... if the chairs are saying we need to change the way we work, I agree
16:58:40 [dom]
... part of it should be "let's not reopen closed issues"
16:58:42 [ekr]
I should also mention that the option adambe just offered basically won't work with any non-WebRTC device when they are the offerer
16:58:54 [dom]
... that being said, I think we're making already good pgoress
16:59:01 [ekr]
because you will need to do a 3264-JS API gateway
16:59:02 [dom]
16:59:15 [dom]
... we're moving probably as fast as implementors can follow
16:59:27 [dom]
... I think we're still far from production-quality projects
16:59:32 [dom]
16:59:32 [fluffy]
16:59:37 [dom]
ack stefanh
16:59:40 [dom]
16:59:51 [dom]
stefanh: I don't think anyone has been proposing to remove offer/answer
17:00:00 [ekr]
… like you process the incoming offer and then you have JS that examines the user's computer with JS
17:00:09 [ekr]
and then you edit the offer appropriately
17:00:12 [dom]
... use cases might have been more detailed, but it remains that most of the described use cases can be implemented
17:00:20 [jesup]
I would agree with ekr, and add that it totally kills the idea of federation (though it's unclear if in practice outside of non-webrtc gateways it will happen, but that case is significant)
17:00:21 [juberti]
Besides track rejection, what else do people think is a dealbreaker/
17:00:24 [dom]
... Should we try and have a look at the actual list
17:00:28 [dom]
... ?
17:00:51 [dom]
fluffy: can we look at the meaning of the columns before?
17:00:58 [dom]
17:01:01 [mt]
I'm going to disagree with fluffy, though not strongly enough to voice it; the spec isn't moving, but that might be simply due to lack of formal closure on items.
17:01:11 [ekr]
Well, this proposal basically throws unified plan off the bus
17:01:19 [dom]
hta: what the columns were supposed to mean:
17:01:25 [juberti]
I like identity too, but I have not heard app developers telling me that it's a dealbreaker
17:01:35 [dom]
... "name of the feature" points to something we have been discussing
17:01:45 [dom]
... and is somewhat indenpendent from the rest
17:01:54 [dom]
... "proposal" is whether there has been a proposal
17:02:07 [dom]
... "consensus" on how much consensus emerged from the discussion
17:02:12 [stefanh]
17:02:19 [dom]
... "in spec" whether it is in an editor draft
17:02:46 [dom]
burn: this just means that some form of it has been added to a draft
17:02:46 [dom]
... not that it is finalized
17:02:46 [dom]
... right?
17:02:53 [dom]
hta: yes
17:03:19 [dom]
hta: an example of "no" is the rollback — there is nothing specified for rollback (but a note to say it is TBD)
17:03:52 [dom]
fluffy: does it include things that are normatively referenced?
17:04:17 [dom]
hta: we're talking about things that needs to be in the W3C spec
17:04:34 [dom]
fluffy: but some of these things are in other specs
17:04:38 [juberti]
Bundle control would be nice to have. But my app would still work even if it was deferred.
17:04:46 [dom]
... I don't like what this column is; I would like it to be redefined
17:04:53 [juberti]
(I would like to see it make 1.0 though_)
17:05:03 [dom]
hta: this group is deciding on the W3C spec
17:05:15 [dom]
... at the last F2F, we spent way too much time on IETF stuff
17:05:21 [dom]
... as a side note
17:06:05 [dom]
hta: "in impl": does anyone of the known implementation do this feature, or some version of it?
17:06:21 [dom]
... with notes on whether it matches the spec or not
17:06:40 [dom]
fluffy: is this only about the two browsers? or also the apps (e.g. the ios app)?
17:06:49 [dom]
... this is not just browsers
17:07:07 [dom]
hta: if you claim this app is an implementation of this spec, tell us what it implements
17:07:19 [dom]
... if it's a c# API that looks like ours, I would say no
17:07:27 [dom]
fluffy: a JavaScript API
17:07:41 [dom]
hta: the bug column references an existing bug or action when it exists
17:07:55 [dom]
... when it doesn't, that points to the need of some minimal starting work for the feature
17:08:19 [dom]
hta: the decision column is: whether we need to do it or not, if we do, before 1.0 or not
17:08:38 [dom]
... it can also that the stuff just needs to be done in IETF (i.e. not something this group can decide)
17:08:52 [dom]
... we also try to evaluate how separatable these things can be
17:09:15 [dom]
... the column "break app" evaluate whether we can add a feature without breaking apps that use the current API
17:09:52 [dom]
... the column "own spec" tries to define whether the feature is specifiable separately, with a proposed name of what that spec would be
17:10:01 [dom]
ekr: @@@
17:10:53 [dom]
ekr: there are cases where depending on how you define the feature, it may or may not break existing apps
17:11:22 [adam]
17:11:25 [adam]
17:11:25 [dom]
... adam suggestion on dealing with video rejection would mean we can't change this without breaking apps that would have hardcoded this
17:12:03 [adam]
17:12:21 [dom]
ekr: how do you consider "hacky workarounds that are unlikely to go away"?
17:12:30 [dom]
hta: they are strong candidates for a no, indeed
17:12:46 [dom]
hta: in order to discussion the high level of our proposed decisions
17:12:49 [ekr]
17:13:04 [dom]
... I propose we look the "can be own spec" column
17:13:19 [juberti]
Track rejection seems like something worth including.
17:13:26 [dom]
fluffy: I think we need to get agreement on the columns and their values before we dive into decisions
17:13:52 [stefanh]
17:13:53 [dom]
hta: if you look at the "own spec" column
17:14:07 [dom]
... if it can be on its own, what's the spec called, where does it go
17:14:14 [dom]
... some of these things are clear or will exist
17:14:20 [ekr]
juberti: again, I'm not pressing on track rejection because I want to change the thing that is in that cell (though I want to) but because I think it is a nice sharp example of how the whole mode of analysis here is wrong
17:14:26 [ekr]
(and of the kind of analysis I think we do need)
17:14:26 [dom]
... e.g. transport object, or bundle tuning
17:14:29 [dom]
... this can be added later
17:15:00 [dom]
fluffy: lots of people spoke of the minimum viable product as the right criteria rather than can live in its own spec
17:15:38 [juberti]
ekr: It seems like something everyone is picking on, and using to implicate the whole process. Almost a strawman.
17:15:48 [dom]
... I think we should discuss first what they mean
17:16:01 [dom]
... I'm not ready to discuss the decisions yet
17:16:16 [Zakim]
17:16:19 [dom]
... I feel like you and your Google role are pushing hard on this; I'm not happy about htis
17:16:22 [dom]
Zakim, mute ??P31
17:16:22 [Zakim]
??P31 should now be muted
17:16:33 [juberti]
17:16:36 [dom]
hta: my google role has absolutely nothing to do about this
17:16:43 [dom]
... I think you're out of line with this
17:17:04 [dom]
fluffy: this spreadsheet was made by google, and does not reflect what I've seen on the list
17:17:23 [ekr]
17:17:23 [dom]
juberti: implying this is a google agenda is clearly out of line
17:17:32 [dom]
... this is the result of the discussions in seattle
17:17:40 [dom]
fluffy: I'm not complaining on the list of things
17:17:46 [dom]
... I'm complaining on the decisions
17:17:53 [dom]
stefanh: these are not decisions
17:17:58 [dom]
... but proposed decisions
17:18:06 [dom]
... I was involved and have no link with Google
17:18:16 [dom]
fluffy: I don't think Chairs should have proposed decisions
17:18:37 [dom]
... but I think we need to get to state how we can fix the data to be in a position to make decisions
17:18:50 [dom]
stefanh: how do we progress on this?
17:18:57 [dom]
juberti: we could have a strawpoll on how people feel about these various features
17:19:01 [ekr]
17:19:01 [hta]
17:19:06 [dom]
... there may be too much ambiguity on some of these things
17:19:18 [dom]
... so maybe we should first look at what is ambiguous
17:19:27 [dom]
ekr: we shouldn't approach this as a chinese menu
17:19:29 [stefanh]
ack ekr
17:19:35 [dom]
... we need to look at what we want to accomplish
17:19:38 [burn]
17:19:40 [ekr]
ack ekr
17:19:43 [fluffy]
17:20:15 [dom]
hta: I would like to see agreement on: if something is an IETF spec and has no API impact, can we remove it from the list?
17:20:41 [dom]
... if something should not worked on here, can we remove it?
17:21:00 [dom]
fluffy: obviously we shouldn't work on things we shouldn't work on
17:21:17 [adambe_]
adambe_ has joined #webrtc
17:21:17 [dom]
... this is not even part of what the WG can decide
17:21:23 [dom]
... any specific example?
17:21:34 [ekr]
17:21:37 [dom]
hta: handling announced and unannounced SSRCs — can we remove those?
17:21:59 [dom]
fluffy: @@@
17:22:25 [JimBarnett]
17:22:31 [dom]
hta: the spec would just need to say that the underlying protocol needs to announce stuff
17:22:45 [Zakim]
17:22:49 [dom]
... I think it's a matter of JSEP or MSID
17:23:10 [dom]
... what an announced/unannounced track look like is a W3C matter, but not how it is done
17:23:25 [Zakim]
- +1.940.735.aakk
17:23:41 [dom]
ekr: if the IETF decided that unannounced SSRCs needs to be turned into a new mediastream, then it would need something at the API level
17:23:57 [dom]
... the IETF would bounce back the requirement to us
17:23:58 [dom]
hta: right
17:24:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.940.735.aaoo
17:24:20 [dom]
fluffy: if there is no change to the API, I have no complaint it's not an issue
17:24:25 [dom]
... but I've seen proposals that required this
17:24:35 [fluffy]
17:24:36 [dom]
s/this/API reflection/
17:24:41 [dom]
ack hta
17:24:42 [hta]
17:24:42 [dom]
ack burn
17:25:01 [ekr]
thanks to the chairs for enforcing time: I have another meeting in 5 minutes so I appreciate them keeping this in line
17:25:05 [dom]
burn: discussions about what we need to make this minimally useful won't converge
17:25:18 [dom]
... there are already strong disagreements on what's doable with current implementations
17:25:31 [dom]
... so we need to think about this from a standardization perspective on separability
17:25:39 [juberti]
I'm not sure on this. Usually tracks pop out from setRemoteDescription. If tracks can pop out at other times, the spec needs to talk about that. So that means spec work for this, even if it is mainly an IETF matter.
17:25:41 [dom]
... separability is not the only factor, but it's a very important one
17:25:50 [dom]
... no standard gets finished if everything needs to be in the first version
17:25:56 [fluffy]
+1 Dan and HTA that figuring out if something is separable is important
17:26:08 [dom]
... one way to figure where to draw the line is relevant to defining 1.0
17:26:20 [dom]
... I think we need to think at this through this standardization perspective
17:26:26 [dom]
+1 to burn
17:26:46 [ekr]
17:26:49 [ekr]
17:26:50 [dom]
ack ekr
17:26:53 [dom]
ack JimBarnett
17:26:56 [Erik]
+1 burn
17:27:18 [dom]
JimBarnett: one concrete way to progress would be for everyone to go through that list and determine the top 3/4 most important
17:27:23 [dom]
... to determine on what to work on next
17:27:35 [dom]
... (independently of in/out)
17:27:41 [fluffy]
+1 on deciding what to work on is impornatnat and different than deciding if they are in or out
17:27:44 [ekr]
I am fine with list discussion/polling for prioritization
17:27:48 [dom]
stefanh: some kind of poll to prioritize
17:27:58 [dom]
... I've also heard about people saying some things are unclear or ambiguous
17:28:02 [dom]
... please bring that to the list
17:28:13 [dom]
juberti: most of these are my fault, would be happy to clarify as needed
17:28:49 [dom]
hta: cullen should have an action item to document where the data is wrong
17:28:54 [lgombos]
lgombos has joined #webrtc
17:29:05 [dom]
fluffy: could I instead come up with an alternative spreadsheet?
17:29:14 [dom]
juberti: I don't think that would help
17:29:25 [dom]
hta: at least, that would make me understand your perspectives
17:30:07 [juberti]
specifically, I would prefer to see a spreadsheet with your take on the decisions, not a whole new spreadsheet with different rows
17:30:09 [dom]
ACTION: fluffy to send comments on feature spreadsheet
17:30:09 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-111 - Send comments on feature spreadsheet [on Cullen Jennings - due 2013-12-26].
17:30:26 [dom]
ACTION: fluffy to send proposed alternative approach to feature selection
17:30:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-112 - Send proposed alternative approach to feature selection [on Cullen Jennings - due 2013-12-26].
17:30:49 [dom]
fluffy: clearly we need at least more clarity on what the features mean
17:30:49 [dom]
... e.g. "feature rejection"
17:30:58 [ekr]
s/feature rejection/track rejection/
17:30:59 [dom]
stefanh: please let's make progress on the list
17:31:25 [Zakim]
17:31:30 [Zakim]
- +1.908.541.aajj
17:31:30 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:31:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dom
17:31:31 [Zakim]
17:31:34 [Zakim]
17:31:35 [Zakim]
- +
17:31:37 [Zakim]
17:31:37 [Zakim]
- +1.940.735.aaoo
17:31:41 [Zakim]
17:31:45 [Zakim]
17:31:48 [Zakim]
17:31:50 [Zakim]
17:31:52 [Zakim]
17:31:54 [Zakim]
17:31:56 [Zakim]
17:31:57 [Zakim]
17:31:57 [Zakim]
17:32:10 [DanE]
DanE has left #webrtc
17:32:18 [Zakim]
- +1.604.210.aamm
17:32:20 [Zakim]
17:32:23 [Zakim]
- +1.613.435.aann
17:32:51 [dom]
Zakim, list attendees
17:32:51 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +1.403.244.aaaa, fluffy, +1.267.934.aabb, stefanh, Jim_Barnett, dom, +1.407.286.aadd, +, jib, +44.190.881.aaff, adam,
17:32:55 [Zakim]
... +, ekr, stephane, +1.857.288.aahh, jesup, Dini, AndyH, +1.425.610.aaii, juberti, +1.908.541.aajj, Dan, +1.940.735.aakk, DanE, hta, garykac, burn,
17:32:55 [Zakim]
... +1.919.649.aall, +1.604.210.aamm, +1.613.435.aann, martin, +1.940.735.aaoo
17:33:00 [Zakim]
- +
17:33:03 [dom]
Zakim, who's on the call?
17:33:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [IPcaller], ??P38, ??P31 (muted)
17:33:04 [Zakim]
[IPcaller] has martin
17:33:10 [dom]
Zakim, drop [IPcaller]
17:33:10 [Zakim]
[IPcaller] is being disconnected
17:33:11 [Zakim]
17:33:13 [dom]
Zakim, drop ??P38
17:33:13 [Zakim]
??P38 is being disconnected
17:33:14 [Zakim]
17:33:15 [dom]
Zakim, drop ??P31
17:33:15 [Zakim]
??P31 is being disconnected
17:33:17 [Zakim]
UW_WebRTC()11:00AM has ended
17:33:17 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.403.244.aaaa, fluffy, +1.267.934.aabb, stefanh, Jim_Barnett, dom, +1.407.286.aadd, +, jib, +44.190.881.aaff, adam, +, ekr, stephane,
17:33:17 [Zakim]
... +1.857.288.aahh, jesup, Dini, AndyH, +1.425.610.aaii, juberti, +1.908.541.aajj, Dan, +1.940.735.aakk, DanE, hta, garykac, burn, +1.919.649.aall, +1.604.210.aamm,
17:33:18 [Zakim]
... +1.613.435.aann, martin, +1.940.735.aaoo
17:33:21 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:33:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dom
17:36:00 [dom]
i/stefanh: first we should look/scribenick: adambe/
17:36:01 [AndyH]
AndyH has left #webrtc
17:36:28 [dom]
i/<stefanh> Dom: We all agree /scribenick: stefanh
17:36:43 [dom]
i/<adambe> stefanh: first we should look/scribenick: adambe/
17:36:46 [dom]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:36:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dom
17:49:41 [lgombos]
lgombos has joined #webrtc
18:31:12 [jesup]
jesup has left #webrtc
19:06:39 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webrtc
19:37:51 [jib]
jib has joined #webrtc
20:02:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webrtc
20:18:02 [hta]
hta has joined #webrtc
21:01:46 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webrtc
21:53:33 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webrtc
21:56:59 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webrtc
22:41:30 [jib]
jib has joined #webrtc
23:26:47 [ekr]
ekr has joined #webrtc