IETF
rtcweb@jabber.ietf.org
Tuesday, May 20, 2014< ^ >
martin.thomson has set the subject to: RTCWEB WG http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/agenda
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[00:28:00] hta joins the room
[01:08:45] hta joins the room
[01:08:45] hta leaves the room
[02:22:14] hta leaves the room
[02:22:33] hta joins the room
[02:28:24] hta leaves the room
[02:44:26] hta joins the room
[02:53:19] hta leaves the room
[03:52:54] spencerdawkins joins the room
[04:41:02] spencerdawkins leaves the room
[04:42:52] spencerdawkins joins the room
[08:37:02] hta joins the room
[10:55:43] spencerdawkins leaves the room
[11:56:32] Cullen Jennings joins the room
[11:58:59] hta leaves the room
[12:13:08] Ted joins the room
[12:13:15] <Ted> Good morning folks
[12:13:15] jlcJohn leaves the room
[12:19:14] spencerdawkins joins the room
[12:23:24] jlcJohn joins the room
[12:25:46] jlcJohn leaves the room
[12:26:03] jlcJohn joins the room
[12:26:25] <jlcJohn> Who's doing invites for today?
[12:26:35] <Ted> Did you not get an invite?
[12:26:38] <Ted> I can resend it
[12:27:02] hta joins the room
[12:27:12] <jlcJohn> Apparently none for today came to scribe1John@gmail.com...
[12:27:46] <Ted> resent
[12:29:01] dcrocker joins the room
[12:29:19] <jesup> Just waiting for gmail to reload so I can click on the invite link....
[12:29:33] <jlcJohn> thx, Ted
[12:30:47] <dcrocker> logged into google with proper id.  using 'Invitation: RTCWEB Day 2 @ Tue May 20, 2014 5:30am - 9:30am" provided link.  Getting 'This party is over' error message.
[12:34:01] <jesup> I'm in, fyi
[12:34:26] <Ted> Hi Dave, I've resent the invite from within hangouts; you should get a new email.
[12:34:31] <Ted> See if that works
[12:34:35] <dcrocker> tnx
[12:34:52] <Ted> We are reviewing note well
[12:35:11] <jesup> It changes *so* often ;-)
[12:35:22] <dcrocker> worked.  tnx.
[12:35:52] burn joins the room
[12:36:52] <jlcJohn> Are today's slides on line somewhere?
[12:38:43] mary.h.barnes joins the room
[12:39:46] <Ted> They'll be on the proceedings site in a moment; cullen is now uploading them.
[12:40:02] <Ted> Sorry, these were a bit last minute
[12:44:11] coopdanger joins the room
[12:44:52] <coopdanger> suggestion for this:
[12:44:54] <coopdanger> OLD:
This document was developed in an initial phase of the work with
  rather minor updates at later stages.  It has not really served as a
  tool in deciding features or scope for the WGs efforts so far.  It is
  proposed to be used in a later phase to evaluate the protocols and
  solutions developed by the WG.
 
NEW:
This document was developed in an initial phase of the work with
  rather minor updates at later stages.  It has not really served as a
  tool in deciding features or scope for the WGs efforts so far.  It is being published to record the early conclusions of the working group. It will not be used as a set of rigid guidelines that specifications and implementations will be held to in the future.
[12:49:35] sean.turner@jabber.psg.com joins the room
[12:50:09] <jesup> Good by me
[12:50:09] jlcJohn leaves the room
[12:50:13] rbarnes joins the room
[12:50:32] Magnus Westerlund joins the room
[12:50:38] <Cullen Jennings> +1
[12:52:11] <spencerdawkins> FWIW, I had the same thoughts as Stephen about the potential for confusion, but Stephen had already balloted DISCUSS, and ADs don't usually pile on with additional DISCUSSes on the same point. So, thanks from me for addressing his high-order bit, too.
[12:57:41] mreavy joins the room
[12:58:53] <sean.turner@jabber.psg.com> on Stephen's point 1) respond to him but no proposed changes to draft
[13:00:35] <sean.turner@jabber.psg.com> i.e., reply: yes we considered it, yes believe SSH leap of faith will be supported, and the WG will define this later
[13:01:41] <dcrocker> What sort of deployment does STUN have, so far?
[13:06:32] <jesup> +1 for remove
[13:09:10] <jesup> dcrocker: There are relatively few public STUN servers considering they're not any significant load.  Mozilla now provides one (geodistributed IIRC).  Services have generally stood up their own as needed, but they're not "public"
[13:10:29] <dcrocker> tnx.  What about TURN or any other nat-transit techniques?  (I haven't tracked any of that work, but the discussion here is relying on the capability.  So I'm curious about the dependency.)
[13:11:10] <rbarnes > dcrocker: in practice, STUN servers also provide TURN servers
[13:11:10] coopdanger leaves the room
[13:11:34] coopdanger joins the room
[13:11:50] <dcrocker> ack.  but the current status is minimal deployment?
[13:13:38] <rbarnes > depends on your metrics.  there aren't millions of servers, but mozilla and google both provide public services that can serve fairly large numbers of users.  IIRC apple is also using TURN for FaceTime, but naturally that's not documented
[13:14:07] <dcrocker> ack. tnx.
[13:14:28] <Cullen Jennings> a friend ran stun.org then discontinued it.
[13:14:50] <Cullen Jennings> stun.org still gets and insane amount of traffice that gets an ICMP error
[13:14:52] <dcrocker> no one could get to it through their nats?
[13:15:07] <Cullen Jennings> Paul Hoffman could give you the stats on this
[13:15:20] <dcrocker> no need.  thanks tho.
[13:16:13] <Cullen Jennings> stun is widely deployed and works very well
[13:17:01] <dcrocker> Cullen:  So you are disagreeing with jesup's "There are relatively few public STUN servers considering they're not any significant load."?
[13:17:06] <rbarnes > so i can't assign negative priority?? :)
[13:20:58] jlcJohn joins the room
[13:21:07] <Ted> Reminder to local folks that you should say your name when speaking.
[13:21:21] <rbarnes > harald on the mic
[13:22:31] <hta> throw some text in there and *do the right thing*.....
[13:27:37] <hta> Randell, the issue is that the WG decided it wanted weighted-round-robin priority (I think this was in Berlin, might have been Vancouver), and there is no weighted-round-robin scheduler defined in SCTP.
[13:28:57] rbarnes leaves the room
[13:41:12] <jesup> hta: From the (skipped) slide from London:  (S)RTP  and non-­‐(S)RTP    streams have    priorities according to requirements. •W3C currently doesn't specify priorities at all. •We agreed on using non strict priorities, like  weighted fair queuing. •Some W3C actions are needed. •Implication for DCEP: Is priority of type int16_t or uint16_t
[13:41:24] <jesup> Slide 10,  issue 7
[13:42:34] <hta> jesup, that fits my memory. I think the W3C action will be done as part of doohickeys - and keep the 4 levels we talked about earlier. You can see where I got the inspiration for the priority scheme in -transport-.
[13:43:33] <hta> sorry, the parallel action for media will be done as part of doohickeys.
[13:44:36] <jesup> hta: for within-SCTP, a search leads me to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-scheduling-00, which probably is not exactly what is envisioned
[13:46:22] <jesup> hta: Is there a way we can resolve this with a reference to work in another document?  Or clone some text from?
[13:47:40] <hta> jesup, I think the new scheduler is needed, so this is a hard TSVWG dependency. I think tuexen is the right person to consult on how we can do this, and how fast.
[13:48:47] <hta> I think it needs an extra section in that precise draft.
[13:50:05] <jesup> hta: From Berlin notes: "We will replace strict priority with weighted fair queuing between priorities.  "
[13:53:17] <jesup> hta: So, how do we reference such a dependency here:  .... weighted fair queuing using an SCTP mechanism to be defined in TSVWG as a modification to draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-scheduling <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-scheduling-00> ?  (of course, that's not an adopted document and it's expired).  Do we need to add an escape valve such as "until such a specification is available XXX should happen"?  strict priorities, no priorities?
[13:53:44] <jesup> FYI I have mail into Tuexen and Salvatore
[13:53:56] chr1sw3ndt joins the room
[14:00:39] pm joins the room
[14:01:08] rbarnes joins the room
[14:01:34] <jesup> Ted: No text yet.  Working on it.  (see discussion above)  
[14:02:01] <jesup> I'm quite open to proposed wordings!!!  ( Magnus Westerlund?)
[14:06:45] <jesup> FYI: michael's response to Magnus's comments pre-London (-07): "Magnus: Ok, this is one part of the agreement from the earlier meeting. There was also agreement on using weighted fair queuing to solve the priorities. The inter stream priority handling needs much firmer specification.   Michael Tuexen: My question: What are the requirements from user JS application. I would like to leave as much room as possible for implementing these requirements...So up to know I have heard non-strict priorities... This needs to be in tune with the W3C...
[14:18:24] <sean.turner@jabber.psg.com> can he redo in jabber?
[14:18:42] <rbarnes > audio is not intelligible, please jabber
[14:31:24] <Magnus Westerlund> Regarding the priority in SCTP Data Channel. The main point is that you can't leave it hanging, somewhere there need to be text defining some level what priority means and how that affects what one really should do. If one part is referencing the packet schedlur in Tuxen's draft that is fine, with the whole question of if that work will be done and adopted.
[14:32:07] <Magnus Westerlund> I also note that how the Data channel does this do affect what Harald needs to write in the transport document and how this relate to the API description of the priority.
[14:52:36] rbarnes leaves the room
[14:54:59] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[14:57:57] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[14:58:07] rbarnes joins the room
[14:58:18] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[15:04:18] spencerdawkins joins the room
[15:11:09] Erik Lagerway joins the room
[15:14:06] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[15:15:11] <Jonathan Lennox> Hi - Ted sent me an invite for the future meetings but not the current one
[15:15:55] <Jonathan Lennox> Can someone invite me?  jonathan.lennox42@gmail.com
[15:16:21] hta leaves the room
[15:16:23] <rbarnes > hta: ^^^ ?
[15:16:41] pm leaves the room
[15:17:44] hta joins the room
[15:18:07] <Jonathan Lennox> hta: are you doing invites?
[15:18:08] <Cullen Jennings> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/2
[15:18:26] <Jonathan Lennox> hta: Ted sent me an invite for the future meetings but not the current one.  jonathan.lennox42@gmail.com
[15:21:35] <Jonathan Lennox> If hta's not paying attention — can anyone else send me an invite?
[15:22:09] <Ted> I sent you an invite from within Hangouts; I've resent it as a calendar invite now
[15:22:26] <hta> Invite sent from Hangouts from me too, so perhaps one succeeds.
[15:22:47] <Jonathan Lennox> Thanks!
[15:22:55] <Jonathan Lennox> Worked.
[15:25:57] hta joins the room
[15:25:58] hta leaves the room
[15:28:41] <jesup> Agree, per-codec limits will vary
[15:28:58] spencerdawkins joins the room
[15:28:59] spencerdawkins leaves the room
[15:29:43] <Jonathan Lennox> mic: There's a difference between "bigger than this isn't useful to me" and "I'll choke on bigger than this".  Screen real estate vs. decode CPU
[15:29:57] <rbarnes > jonathan: will relay
[15:38:17] <Jonathan Lennox> Is audio from the hangout going to the room?  What's the protocol for remote speaking?
[15:41:28] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[15:46:43] <jesup> Option 3
[15:47:00] <Jonathan Lennox> I agree with all four statements.
[15:47:00] <jesup> I'm fine with option 2 as well
[15:47:06] <Jonathan Lennox> I think they're not-conflicting.
[15:47:44] <Erik Lagerway> yes, option 2 or 3 if fine with me as well
[15:49:16] <Ted> Jonathan, the protocol for speaking is to unmute; it will then put you up on the main screen and we can hear you.
[15:49:37] <Jonathan Lennox> Okay
[15:53:21] <Jonathan Lennox> I think I hear Cullen speaking off-mic but I can't hear him?
[15:58:52] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[15:59:28] csp joins the room
[16:01:28] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[16:04:45] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[16:04:52] Erik Lagerway leaves the room
[16:05:32] rbarnes leaves the room
[16:05:40] coopdanger leaves the room
[16:07:10] <Ted> Remember that the next session is WEBRTC, and will be at the #webrtc IRC channel at w3.org
[16:07:11] <jesup> hta: we have responses from Tuexen; it sounds like just reference the ndata draft (which we already reference), and we add it there.  Then some W3 work as outlined in his email.  This works.  \o/
[16:07:18] mary.h.barnes leaves the room
[16:07:21] Ted leaves the room
[16:07:22] csp leaves the room
[16:11:24] rbarnes joins the room
[16:14:55] rbarnes leaves the room
[16:20:17] coopdanger joins the room
[16:35:17] rbarnes joins the room
[16:42:39] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[17:18:24] dcrocker leaves the room
[17:55:03] Thiago Marinello joins the room
[18:05:04] rbarnes leaves the room
[18:36:30] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[18:36:45] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[18:41:00] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[18:41:50] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[18:45:27] sean.turner@jabber.psg.com leaves the room
[18:54:22] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[18:55:27] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[19:03:00] Thiago Marinello leaves the room
[19:03:23] Thiago Marinello joins the room
[19:40:35] coopdanger leaves the room
[20:00:24] coopdanger joins the room
[20:08:06] Cullen Jennings leaves the room
[20:11:31] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[20:20:17] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[20:30:31] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[20:31:08] spencerdawkins leaves the room
[20:33:09] Thiago Marinello leaves the room
[20:40:29] Thiago Marinello joins the room
[20:49:50] chr1sw3ndt leaves the room
[20:51:41] spencerdawkins leaves the room
[20:52:04] spencerdawkins joins the room
[20:53:24] spencerdawkins leaves the room
[21:01:51] chr1sw3ndt joins the room
[21:06:10] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[21:06:31] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[21:21:30] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[21:31:07] coopdanger leaves the room
[21:32:11] jlcJohn leaves the room
[21:35:40] hta leaves the room
[21:47:22] Magnus Westerlund leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/.
[22:10:44] burn leaves the room
[22:14:28] alfredh@jabber.org joins the room
[22:14:32] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
[22:38:28] mreavy joins the room
[22:47:32] mreavy leaves the room
[22:48:01] alfredh@jabber.org leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!