[RTW] [dispatch] The charter formerly know as RTC-WEB take 3

[Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com]

Hi Henry,

Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>
>>I believe
>> Jingle is more monolithic and easier to handle in this sense.)
>
>This adds even more to the endless discussions of SIP vs. Jingle,
>actually
>it also adds a 3rd option and folks who have implemented SIP/SIMPLE may
>or
>may not be happy about it.
>

If by 3rd option you mean that the RTC-Web effort would produce its own specific session establishment protocol, I tend to agree with you. If we think a standardized session establishment protocol is needed, we should take an existing one, and at maximum just worry how it can be transported over HTTP or WebSocket (that may be a valid requirement).

>Bottom line:
>Adding a 3rd option to the signaling will bog down the RTC-Web work even
>more. The API should be a separate effort.
>Oh, the discussions there...
>Don't expect anyone there to give in easily :-), and why can/should
>they?
>
>Let's leave the API out for scope.
>

To be clear: Are you saying that we should *not* have the session establishment protocol included in the charter? Or which API do you mean? Because in your earlier mail you supported Adam's suggestion:

> "The selection, design and/or extension of a protocol or protocols for 
> establishing and controlling media sessions is in scope for the 
> working group."

Which says that the session establishment protocol is within the scope of the work. And if it is, the associated API will surely be defined on the W3C side.

>Thanks, Henry
>

Markus