On 02/26/11 08:31, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> That was another key issue I also have with the charter - I was under
> the impression the group is there to solve the RTC communication on
> the Web (!), i.e. in Web browsers using HTML5 and HTTP. The charter
> is, however, so much wider and I am starting to wonder if we are
> trying to create an unwieldy solution to an unclear problem.

[BA] The charter does not in fact cover a number of issues relevant to
RTC communication over HTTP, such as something as basic as
encoding. While peer-to-peer media over UDP is to be preferred
where available, the reality is that today "HTTP failover" has become
an essential feature of today's most successful realtime web
services.

So ironically, the charter both underspecifies and overspecifies
the work, at the same time.

Bernard, can you formulate a section for the "list of technologies to be considered" that captures the technology of "HTTP failover"?

What are the other issues you don't feel are covered?

> I am willing to provide an alternative charter proposal, if there is
> interest, attempting to take these comments into consideration.

I would support the development of an alternative proposal.

I would also welcome alternative text for sections of the current charter. While alternative proposals are one way to go, some of us think that the stuff that is in the current charter is stuff that needs to be in any charter going forward. The result is likely to be a synthesis of ideas; we can get there either by iterating or by proposing alternatives.

Harald