<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<br>> > While there is an obvious need for IETF activity on underlying <br>> > protocols, codecs and formats I'm unsure as to how a W3C RTC group is <br>> > going to effectively manage any overlaps here.<br>> So am I. Input here and to the WHATWG and W3C on what people think would <br>> be appropriate methods to manage the division of labour would be <br>> helpful. I have my opinions, but I'm not the only one whose opinion matters.<br><br>The best suggestion I can come up with is to set up formal cross-review milestones. <br>That is, the IETF RTCWEB might produce framework or API requirements documents that the W3C<br>RTCWEB WG could review, and once there is agreement on those and things are further along, <br>the IETF RTCWEB WG could review a W3C RTCWEB API document for compatibiity with those<br>documents. <br><br>Of course, this assumes that the IETF and W3C WGs work at a pace that permits this kind of<br>cross-review to occur in a timely way. If the groups get way out of sync on timelines (e.g. the IETF<br>RTCWEB WG complete all its milestones and closes, and the W3C RTCWEB WG is still in progress)<br>then things could get tough. However, even in that (extreme) case, there would probably be<br>interim drafts that the groups could look at. to make sure things were going in the right<br>direction. <br> </body>
</html>