IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10 - real-time text

Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Fri, 25 January 2013 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D5C21F886E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:57:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iKiksA3Va26D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:57:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vsp-authed-01-02.binero.net (vsp-authed02.binero.net [195.74.38.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E434421F886C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.binero.se (unknown [195.74.38.28]) by vsp-authed-01-02.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:51:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.2.42] (h79n2fls31o933.telia.com [212.181.137.79]) (Authenticated sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se) by smtp-08-01.atm.binero.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5A6193A1EF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:51:56 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5102FE7E.5000109@omnitor.se>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:51:58 +0100
From: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <50F97303.4070906@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <50F97303.4070906@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10 - real-time text
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:57:19 -0000

On 2013-01-18 17:06, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> WG,
>
> I would here by like to announce a two week WG last call that ends on
> the 1st of February.
>
> Document is available here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements/
>

We had a good discussion in December on inclusion of the real-time text 
medium.

It was decided to document three alternative implementations with pros 
and cons and after that decide which one to standardize together with 
the two already mentioned media in rtcweb.

The three alternatives were:
1.) An RTP medium similar to audio and video, using RFC 4103 transport.

2.) A semi-reliable data channel with a standardized label.

3.) A web service based protocol, such as BOSH and XEP-0301 for 
real-time text in XMPP with a well specified integration with rtcweb in 
a common application.

For all three cases, there is a need to have a specification for how 
calls with audio, video and real-time text are exchanged with SIP based 
environments, e.g. for interaction with RFC 6443 based emergency services.

Text is a natural part of today's video and audio applications, so all 
use cases look quite meager without it.

  I suggest that we make a rapid mini-investigation on the real-time 
text alternatives and decide which variant to include in a use case.

/Gunnar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email