14:51:44 RRSAgent has joined #webrtc 14:51:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/10-webrtc-irc 14:51:46 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:51:46 Zakim has joined #webrtc 14:51:48 Zakim, this will be RTC 14:51:48 ok, trackbot; I see UW_Web RTC()11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 14:51:49 Meeting: Web Real-Time Communications Working Group Teleconference 14:51:49 Date: 10 April 2012 14:53:50 UW_Web RTC()11:00AM has now started 14:53:57 + +1.403.244.aaaa 14:53:58 fluffy has joined #webrtc 14:54:58 +??P15 14:55:30 +Dan_Burnett 14:55:36 zakim, I am Dan_Burnett 14:55:36 ok, burn, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett 14:56:38 zakim, I am Cullen_Jennings 14:56:38 sorry, fluffy, I do not see a party named 'Cullen_Jennings' 14:57:16 yes - thanks 14:57:18 Zakim, aaaa is Cullen_Jennings 14:57:18 +Cullen_Jennings; got it 14:57:18 stefanh has joined #webrtc 14:57:41 nstratford has joined #webrtc 14:58:28 dom has changed the topic to: WebRTC WG Teleconf April 10 - agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Apr/0003.html 14:58:30 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Apr/0003.html 14:58:50 Chair: Stefan_Hakansson, Harald_Alvestrand 14:59:11 Jim has joined #webrtc 14:59:21 adambe has joined #webrtc 14:59:31 +Jim_Barnett 14:59:45 + +1.415.800.aabb 15:00:14 +??P2 15:00:18 Zakim, ??P2 is me 15:00:18 +dom; got it 15:00:39 +??P3 15:00:44 + +46.1.07.14.aacc 15:00:58 Zakim, aacc is stefanh 15:00:58 +stefanh; got it 15:01:13 leonpo has joined #webrtc 15:01:16 + +46.1.07.14.aadd 15:01:35 Zakim, aadd is adambe 15:01:35 +adambe; got it 15:01:37 anant has joined #webrtc 15:01:49 Zakim, who's on the call? 15:01:49 On the phone I see Cullen_Jennings, ??P15, Dan_Burnett, Jim_Barnett, +1.415.800.aabb, dom, ??P3, stefanh, adambe 15:01:52 +??P14 15:01:52 - +1.415.800.aabb 15:01:59 +??P16 15:02:01 + +1.908.541.aaee 15:02:06 + +1.650.961.aaff 15:02:16 Zakim, who's noisy? 15:02:21 Zakim, aadd is adambe 15:02:21 sorry, stefanh, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd' 15:02:23 -??P14 15:02:25 Zakim, I am Cullen Jennings 15:02:25 I don't understand 'I am Cullen Jennings', fluffy 15:02:27 dom, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jim_Barnett (37%), ??P14 (23%) 15:02:36 member:Zakim, I am Cullen_Jennings 15:02:43 + +1.415.800.aagg 15:02:43 ahhg 15:02:44 jesup has joined #webrtc 15:02:51 Zakim, I am Cullen_Jennings 15:02:51 ok, fluffy, I now associate you with Cullen_Jennings 15:03:01 Zakim, aagg is anant 15:03:01 +anant; got it 15:03:33 Zakim, who's on the call? 15:03:33 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 Zakim, I am Stefan_Hakansson 15:03:59 sorry, stefanh, I do not see a party named 'Stefan_Hakansson' 15:04:05 tim has joined #webrtc 15:04:07 ceyrigno has joined #webrtc 15:04:13 Zakim, aaff is me 15:04:13 +derf; got it 15:04:16 +Dan_Druta 15:04:29 :) 15:04:32 + +1.610.889.aahh 15:04:35 DanD has joined #webrtc 15:04:36
  • li has joined #webrtc 15:04:43 aahh is me 15:04:54 + +33.6.85.56.aaii 15:04:54 Zakim, aahh is jesup 15:04:54 +jesup; got it 15:04:58 tim has left #webrtc 15:05:07 + +47.41.44.aajj 15:05:10 +??P22 15:05:25 Zakim, aajj is hta 15:05:25 +hta; got it 15:05:29 Zakim, who's on the call 15:05:29 I don't understand 'who's on the call', stefanh 15:05:40 Zakim, ??P22 is me 15:05:40 +nstratford; got it 15:05:42 timpanton has joined #webrtc 15:05:45 hta has joined #webrtc 15:05:46 Zakim, who's on the call? 15:05:49 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, +33.6.85.56.aaii, hta, 15:05:52 ... nstratford 15:06:21 + +1.617.575.aakk 15:06:22 I joined the call but unfortunately I am in another meeting for the first part of this. 15:06:33 juberti has joined #webrtc 15:06:49 Zakim, who is here 15:06:49 juberti, you need to end that query with '?' 15:06:52 Zakim, who is here? 15:06:52 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, +33.6.85.56.aaii, hta, 15:06:55 ... nstratford, +1.617.575.aakk 15:06:55 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 ... Josh_Soref, rektide, trackbot, dom 15:07:02 I will have to take my leaver at 9am, unfortunately 15:07:05 Zakim, aakk is juberti 15:07:05 +juberti; got it 15:07:10 *leave 15:07:28 scribenick: juberti 15:07:45 stefan: agenda review 15:08:08 stefan: audio WG request for review 15:08:12 stefan: status of the spec 15:08:18 stefan: any other business 15:08:25 Does someone have a URL for the audio WG request for Review? 15:08:29 Topic: Minutes approval 15:08:34 -> http://www.w3.org/2012/03/13-webrtc-minutes.html March 13 minutes 15:08:40 stefan: first action - approve minutes from last meeting 15:08:50 hta: if no objections, they are approved 15:08:52 jesup, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Mar/0072.html 15:09:14 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/track/actions/open Open Action items 15:09:35 Topic: Action items 15:09:36 stefan: review open actions 15:09:48 ACTION-11? 15:09:48 ACTION-11 -- Daniel Burnett to add Hints API to API spec -- due 2012-01-12 -- OPEN 15:09:48 http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/track/actions/11 15:09:49 hta: Constraints API status 15:10:13 dan: proposal, hasn't been added to spec, not sure if we have consensus 15:10:40 hta: want to send note to Media Capture task force saying we have sufficient consensus 15:10:48 ACTION-11: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Mar/0033.html Constraints and Capabilities API for getUserMedia 15:10:48 ACTION-11 Add Constraints API to API spec notes added 15:11:03 ACTION-13: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Mar/0033.html Constraints and Capabilities API for getUserMedia 15:11:03 ACTION-13 Add Capabilities API to API spec notes added 15:11:10 ACTION-12? 15:11:10 ACTION-12 -- Daniel Burnett to add Stats API to API spec -- due 2012-01-20 -- OPEN 15:11:10 http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/track/actions/12 15:11:18 dan: no progress on stats API 15:11:23 + +1.408.902.aall 15:12:13 ACTION-18? 15:12:13 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/track/actions/18 15:13:00 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012Mar/0031.html Any overlap with webrtc WG?, Stefan Hakansson LK on March 20 15:13:04 stefan: don't think there are they many similarities, Stefan will follow up and see if there is any overlap 15:13:14 ACTION-18: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012Mar/0031.html 15:13:14 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 hta: changing numeric constants to be strings 15:14:38 dan: remind me what this is? 15:14:46 ACTION-29? 15:14:46 ACTION-29 -- Daniel Burnett to change all numeric constants to be enumerated strings -- due 2012-04-01 -- OPEN 15:14:46 http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/track/actions/29 15:14:47 hta: stop using numeric enums, switch to using strings 15:15:03 dan: don't remember the specifics of this 15:15:17 hta: cullen did this in his draft JSEP proposal 15:15:36 hta: dan, will follow up with you on this one 15:16:38 hta: echo cancellation API - is cullen here? 15:17:04 hta: proposed moving mediastream API from PeerConnection to getUserMedia 15:17:31 hta: recent discussion on getting adam/cullen/justin together to discuss JSEP API 15:17:35 hta: end of action list 15:17:47 Topic: F2F meetings 15:17:47 stefan: next task is to discuss upcoming f2f meetings 15:18:10 stefan: proposal is to do back-to-back with upcoming IETF interim meeting 15:18:28 someone: where will this meeting be located? 15:18:30 SFO, NYC, BOS, London, STockholm 15:18:34 burn: just for reference, ACTION-29 refers to changing all the 'const' as listed in http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#peerconnection to strings 15:18:36 -> http://doodle.com/nm3pp69znr3286cy Doodle for picking dates for next RTCWeb meeting 15:18:40 s/someone/adambe/ 15:18:40 hta: not sure yet - SFO, NYC, BOS, STO 15:18:48 s/burn:/burn,/ 15:19:13 anant: how will the venue be chosen? 15:19:28 hta: no specific procedure 15:20:11 anant: can't really fill out the doodle poll until we know what venue will be chosen 15:20:35 hta: doodle poll closes this friday 15:20:58 stefan: next f2f is TPAC in October 15:21:59 hta: interacting with DAP WG and Media Task Force 15:22:08 (for the May/June F2F, have we decided for how long? how it would relate to the IETF meeting?) 15:22:16 stefan: so we should aim to have our meetings on the same days 15:22:40 dom: would we have 1 day for the W3C f2f? 15:23:03 stefan: I think the IETF f2f would be 2 days, so the W3C would be just before or after 15:23:14 hta: I think 0.5 days was too short the last time, this time we'll do a whole day 15:23:29 hta: any comments? 15:23:40 stefan: next thing on the agenda 15:23:51 stefan: chairs to report on Media Capture Task Force 15:23:55 + +1.650.678.aamm 15:24:06 stefan: anant has made many proposals for changes and updates 15:24:25 stefan: not much feedback to date. Would like to see more feedback from this community. 15:24:37 stefan: hta, anything from your side? 15:25:03 anant: proposed changes to getUserMedia spec, but only 2-3 people responding 15:25:22 i/stefan: chairs to report/Topic: Media Capture 15:25:32 stefan: should we move the definition of MediaStream into the getUserMedia specification? 15:26:03 anant: you could still have a MediaStream even outside of PeerConnection 15:26:15 anant: OTOH, PeerConnections have specific mappings to RTP streams 15:26:25 +1 on moving MediaStream to getUserMedia 15:26:25 anant: so need to figure out where this should go 15:26:36 anant: I lean towards putting it in getUserMedia 15:27:03 anant: define the base MediaStream stuff in getUserMedia doc, extensions for realtime usage can go into PeerConnection doc 15:27:42 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: How would we do this split? 15:28:36 anant: An example could be attributes on the MediaStream for packet loss 15:28:44 anant: which is only relevant to PeerConnection 15:28:53 Seems reasonable to move it to me. 15:29:21 someone: Can we make a standalone for for MediaStream? 15:29:41 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 s/someone/suhas 15:30:43 hta: no real dissent voiced 15:30:57 Robert O'Callahan's MediaStream Processing spec also extends MediaStreams slightly - adds currentTime, createProcessor(), createWorkerProcessor() 15:31:26 juberti: I agree that getUserMedia will ship sooner and also be unlikely to have things that aren't generally useful 15:31:37 stefan: I agree with this direction 15:32:05 someone: could we get dropped frames info from the MediaStream? 15:33:12 jesup: what about stats tied to data in the stream 15:33:43 hta: decision to move the spec as described 15:34:09 action anant: move MediaStream spec to getUserMedia 15:34:09 Created ACTION-38 - Move MediaStream spec to getUserMedia [on Anant Narayanan - due 2012-04-17]. 15:34:25 We can extend MediaStream in WebRTC (as we already do for localMediaStreams) 15:35:08 stefan: audio WG sent request for review of their spec to the WebRTC list 15:35:19 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Mar/0072.html Audio WG request for feedback 15:35:29 stefan: not sure if we should accumulate group feedback versus individual feedback. what do people think? 15:35:47 jesup: there are some competing proposals 15:36:12 jesup: proposal from Mozilla ties audio processing/video processing more closely with MediaStreams 15:36:33 hta: one piece of feedback is that we would like to only have to evaluate one proposal 15:37:07 derf: haven't seen satisfactory answers to the concerns that have been raised for real-time usage 15:37:20 jesup: would be nice to process audio streams and video streams in the same framework 15:37:33 jesup: but it doesn't do this right now 15:37:42 derf: proposal doesn't handle synchronization 15:38:04 stefan: suggestion is to do individual feedback 15:38:38 +Narm_Gadiraju 15:38:39 Synchronization is critical to WebRTC 15:38:46 scribenick: dom 15:38:55 Topic: Spec status 15:39:09 i/stefan: audio WG/Topic: Audio WG feedback request 15:39:17 hta: JSEP aligned API - status? 15:39:17 narm has joined #webrtc 15:39:31 stefanh: should we wait for cullen to join the call? 15:39:42 ... he said he would be late 15:39:49 -Narm_Gadiraju 15:39:50 hta: let's wait and see 15:39:55 ... let's move to Data API 15:40:35 +Narm_Gadiraju 15:41:26 dom: regarding constraints, I was suggesting this should be done separately from getUserMedia 15:41:34 ... due again to the difference in release schedule for that feature 15:41:43 ... getUserMedia will be shipped without constraints at first 15:41:51 ... so contraints should be spec-d separately 15:41:55 ... with the proper hook 15:42:15 Dan: I definitely see the need to be able to say "I want a video stream" independently of constraint 15:42:29 ... but I'm a bit nervous about saying we'll deal with constraints later 15:42:35 ... constraints are also useful for local user media 15:42:40 ... e.g. screen resolutions 15:42:57 ... there may be a need to actually specific some constraints that are camera-related 15:43:00 Agreed on screen resolutions, frame rate, etc 15:43:15 Zakim, mute me 15:43:15 dom should now be muted 15:43:28 ... some people have a notion of a logical media stream 15:43:56 ... the encoding e.g. depends on the resolution 15:44:07 ... so that dependency makes me nervous 15:44:29 hta: a logical way forward is to have a place where to list constraints, without specifying constraints 15:44:36 dan: I would prefer that 15:44:39 Zakim, unmute me 15:44:39 dom should no longer be muted 15:44:51 ... as a group, we'll need to define what set of constraints we want to proceed with 15:44:53 q+ 15:44:58 ... this may be an empty set 15:45:09 ... e.g. no constraints are necessary for the local case 15:45:18 s/are/may be/ 15:45:27 Randell: this seems reasonable to me 15:45:47 ... 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 ... e.G. changing resolution of framerate from an existing stream 15:46:09 ... at this time, the only way to do that is to get a different getUserMedia stream 15:46:26 ... I would think you would want to be able to modify the stream you're getting 15:46:48 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 ... I don't know if that cover all cases, but it covers some of them for sure 15:47:08 ... that means you don't have to drop your stream to get a new one 15:47:23 ... you want to make sure you don't tear down a number of states that would have to be rebuilt 15:47:33 dan: some constraints would not require a new persmission check; some might 15:47:39 s/persm/perm/ 15:47:51 ... but that doesn't mean we wouldn't want to make that kind of modification 15:50:45 dom: no question about the need for constraints, but clearly this adds complexity, possible another API for modifying streams 15:51:00 ... all of which is unlikely to be shipped as early as getUserMedia 15:51:12 ... so we should focus on getUserMedia first, constraints later 15:51:34 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 ... since hints are exactly what constraints are supposed to address 15:51:53 s/is fine/might be acceptable/ 15:52:03 dan: rich has been suggesting having hints 15:52:19 randell: e.g. a way to express preference of resolution vs framerate 15:52:46 justin: we have specific use cases of what we want to do 15:53:05 ... if we don't think that hints solve our use cases, then that doesn't seem like a worthy proposal 15:53:14 stefanh: hints seems to be equivalent to optional constraints 15:53:36 randell: I haven't thought enough about this; I don't have an opinion on the matter at this point 15:53:55 hta: I haven't see any evidence that hints would differ from optional constraints 15:54:23 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 ... not working on constraints might work if we don't get hints back in 15:54:56 ... how would this work in practice? 15:55:27 ... Adam's proposal wasn't to do away with constraints 15:55:56 Adam: my proposal was to add the constraints object as a third property of the first param in getUserMedia 15:56:13 ... to break the dependency between getUserMedia and constraints definitions 15:57:08 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 -anant 15:58:24 -??P3 15:58:55 I have joined the call again 15:59:36 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 ... we probably need to look a concrete integration proposals off-line 16:00:05 ... but the idea was that constraints would be a third property in the mediastreamoptions object 16:00:20 ... that browsers should block on if they can't interpret it 16:00:42 dan: that sounds like fine if we agree on the dictionary structure 16:01:03 ... the "fail on unknown" constraint sounds like approach to forward-compatibility 16:01:29 cullen: given that audio and video are completely trivial to specify, shouldn't we just do that? 16:03:09 dom: it's a bit hard to follow these suggestions without concrete proposals 16:03:11 GangLiang_ has joined #webrtc 16:03:37 justin: shipping getUserMEdia with just VGA resolution would be very useful 16:03:49 Adam: @@@ 16:04:07 Dan: I don't think the group will agree that VGA only is the right way to start 16:04:39 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 Justin: I'm not sure that getting resolutions right is that trivial, so it would probably take a while 16:06:01 Cullen: my only proposal that selecting audio and video streams would themselves be designed as constraints 16:06:20 Randell: I'm concerned that we spend a lot of time about designing an API for setting static parameters 16:06:40 ... sounds like we're missing a big aspect of this 16:06:54 ... The solution might not be to design a overall constraints API right now 16:07:10 ... but rather to define a way to have a way to change the parameters of an existing media stream 16:07:37 ... then we don't have to solve the issue at the "creation-time" 16:07:49 Dan: I see the two as the same problem 16:08:28 ... 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 Randell: yes, but it's not obvious that this needs to be hardset in the algorithm in the spec 16:09:00 ... rather than by code in the Web app itself 16:09:09 s/hardset/hard set/ 16:09:34 Cullen: this is not a constraint language by any definition 16:09:44 yes 16:10:02 EKR: what are you allowed to say in this language? I've only skimmed it some time ago 16:10:19 dan: it allows you to set min/max values for a number of properties (e.g. aspect ratio, framerate, ...) 16:10:29 EKR: will this metastasized? 16:10:40 ... how can someone express something that hasn't been defined? 16:10:53 Randell: let's take a video source that has an embedded encoder in it 16:11:03 ... that means you would have to specify constraint for that encoder as well 16:11:21 dan: as an app dev, you only have to specify what you care about 16:11:35 ... The browser will have to work out how to satisfy your requirements 16:11:58 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 ... but what if he cares? how does he deal with that case? 16:12:20 dan: I don't know that we can avoid the lower level code in that case 16:12:41 ... constraints allow for a high level approach for most developers needs 16:13:19 Randell: I don't have a problem with defining a constraint language if we want one 16:13:24 ... if it convers everything we need 16:13:30 s/convers/convers/ 16:13:50 ... 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 ... we can get by without it, but the pressure to get it will be high 16:14:49 justin: not sure why VGA won't be sufficient for v1? 16:14:55 Cullen: mobile won't do it 16:15:04 justin: this could be the highest thing to ask for 16:15:13 hta: this is a more detailed discussion than we have had on the list 16:15:21 ... With 15 minutes left, we need to return to JSEP 16:15:39 justin: it seems reasonable to have an initial constraint, plus an API to change constraints 16:15:57 dan: the proposal was never to suggest we shouldn't let change constraints 16:16:18 ... the proposal only gives examples of constraints; we would need to define the first set of constraints 16:16:44 ... 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 ... i.e. using the same data structure 16:17:15 dom: how do we move forward with this? 16:17:25 hta: any action items? 16:18:09 hta: earlier in the call there was an action item about incorporating capabilities in the editors draft of getUserMedia 16:18:30 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 ... I'm happy to do that and send an updated proposal 16:18:49 ... please read it then :) 16:19:32 hta: so Adam and Cullen, will you suggest modifications to Dan's proposal? 16:19:37 dan: Adam already did 16:19:48 ... although you referenced the registry rather than my proposal 16:20:35 ACTION: Dan to send an updated Capabilities proposal to Media Capture Task Force 16:20:35 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Dan 16:20:35 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ddruta, dburnett, dromasca) 16:20:42 ACTION: burnett to send an updated Capabilities proposal to Media Capture Task Force 16:20:42 Created ACTION-39 - Send an updated Capabilities proposal to Media Capture Task Force [on Daniel Burnett - due 2012-04-17]. 16:22:15 TOPIC: JSEP API 16:22:33 stefanh: we've only had limited feedback on which of the proposals for moving forward with JSEP 16:23:00 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 ... I've always characterized the two proposals by the number of function calls 16:23:29 ... but this was a flawed understanding apparently 16:23:42 ... we haven't looked at the different important characteristics 16:23:54 ... nothing has moved during IETF 16:24:01 ... but we're getting back on track now 16:24:59 dom: getting this list of differences would also help the rest of us know which proposal we are likely to prefer :) 16:25:14 ... unless it is sufficient to make you guys decide to merge into one proposal 16:25:53 justin: @@@ 16:26:05 ... the other change relates to what happens when you call addStream 16:26:18 ... does the local description change right away? or do you have install it with setLocalDescription? 16:26:33 ... implicit update seemed like an easy win 16:26:51 ... 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 ... Once we resolve this, we could have a draft of a merged proposal 16:27:36 Cullen: my proposal lets you change the SDP when you add a stream 16:27:37 -Dan_Burnett 16:27:40 ... e.G. to remove a codec 16:27:48 ... this seems an important feature that people wants 16:28:03 Justin: you could always replace the SDP and setLocalDescription with an updated SDP 16:28:55 -derf 16:29:22 hta: there is also a difference in terms of initiative 16:29:36 ... in Adam's proposal, the application just reacts to what the browser does 16:29:48 ... in the other proposal, you're on your own to manage the whole ice state machine 16:30:06 Adam: the browser doesn't really do anything if the developer doesn't do anything 16:30:49 -Narm_Gadiraju 16:31:17 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 ... in the JSEP proposal, you can just not call createOffer() 16:31:46 ... in the other proposal, there will be an onsignaling callback — what should you do about it? 16:32:00 stefanh: the application could still wait to call the addStream 16:32:11 adam: addStream is still in the control of the JavaScript 16:32:54 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 justin: there were comments that getting callbacks at random times create weird bugs 16:33:55 stefanh: I want to ensure that cullen, adam and justin have this meeting next Monday 16:34:12 ... that meeting should either produce a list of differences, or a merged proposal in a reasonable amount of time 16:34:26 justin: I think we've enumarated the main differences of the two APIs 16:34:57 adam: in the browser, everything is asynchronous 16:35:35 cullen: so our meeting will help the discussions; but I suspect we'll still be back to multiple orthogonal decisions 16:35:48 ... I wouldn't be surprised that we will need another phone call to go through this 16:36:00 stefanh: yes; that would be a better informed phone call though 16:36:12 adam: clearly the first step is for the 3 of us to better understand the two proposals 16:37:10 Randell: I'll bring the Data API on the list 16:37:19 stefanh: and implementation feedback would be very welcome as well 16:37:22 - +1.408.902.aall 16:37:23 -dom 16:37:25 - +1.650.678.aamm 16:37:26 -??P16 16:37:26 -juberti 16:37:27 -adambe 16:37:27 -stefanh 16:37:28 -nstratford 16:37:28 -Cullen_Jennings 16:37:31 -Jim_Barnett 16:37:32 -jesup 16:37:35 -??P15 16:37:35 adambe has left #webrtc 16:37:36 - +1.908.541.aaee 16:37:39 -hta 16:37:43 -Dan_Druta 16:40:02 Zakim, who's on the call? 16:40:02 On the phone I see +33.6.85.56.aaii 16:40:05 Zakim, drop aaii 16:40:05 +33.6.85.56.aaii is being disconnected 16:40:07 UW_Web RTC()11:00AM has ended 16:40:07 Attendees were +1.403.244.aaaa, Dan_Burnett, Cullen_Jennings, Jim_Barnett, +1.415.800.aabb, dom, +46.1.07.14.aacc, stefanh, +46.1.07.14.aadd, adambe, +1.908.541.aaee, 16:40:07 ... +1.650.961.aaff, +1.415.800.aagg, anant, derf, Dan_Druta, +1.610.889.aahh, +33.6.85.56.aaii, jesup, +47.41.44.aajj, hta, nstratford, +1.617.575.aakk, juberti, +1.408.902.aall, 16:40:07 ... +1.650.678.aamm, Narm_Gadiraju 16:40:11 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:40:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/10-webrtc-minutes.html dom 18:55:47 Zakim has left #webrtc 19:10:33 jesup has left #webrtc 20:44:07 anant has joined #webrtc