Real Time Communication for the World Wide Web (RTCWEB) BOF minutes Chairs: Ted Hardie Harald Alvestrand Meeting 1: IETF 80, Tuesday, March 29, 0900-1130 Location: Prague Hilton, Congress Hall II Minutes: Christer Holmberg < Meeting 2 (formally a DISPATCH ad-hoc meeting): Friday, April 1, 1415-1515 Location: Prague Hilton, Grand Ballroom Minutes: Cary Bran Version: 0.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- TUESDAY http://ietf80streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf80/ietf80-ch3-tues-am.mp3 Collaboration with W3C: -------------------------- - It was noted that while IETF has the network expertise, W3C has the API expertise, and that collaboration between the group is important. - It was indicated, as there are people active in both IETF and W3C, it is better to rely on active collaboration driven by individuals, rather than sending liaisons between the SDOs. - Is was questioned whether IETF and W3C have different IPR policies. - It was indicated that the security model also needs to be defined in collaboration with W3C, as there are web security aspects that IETF might not have good knowledge of. - There was a question whether document produced by IETF and W3C needs to be approved by both SDOs. It was indicated that hopefully there will not be a need for both groups to formally approve documents of the other group, but each SDO should follow and review the work of the other group. - It was commented that we might need to establish a collaboration also with the WHATWG, rather than relying on W3C for the WHATWG collaboration. Use-cases and requirements: ----------------------------- Presenter: Christer Holmberg - The presenter indicated that we need to, in order to produce API requirements, agree on the functional split between the browser and the web-app. - The presenter indicated that NAT/FW traversal also contains a mechanism to perform media fallback (e.g. HTTP fallback). RTC-Web Framework: ------------------------- Presenter: Jonathan Rosenberg - The presenter indicated that, as the browser and web-app in most cases are produced by different organizations, we should look at the API between the browser and web-app as a protocol. - It was commented that we need to be careful with terminology, as an API does not dictate a protocol. - It was commented that the API should not be too complex for web application. It was suggested that the API might have different levels of complexity. - It was indicated that the browser application itself might not implement the features it offers to the web-app. Some features might also be offered by the OS, where the broswer simply provides access to those features to the web-app. Web Security: --------------- Presenter: Eric Rescorla - The following security areas, related to rtc-web, were identified: -- Media remote peer verification. -- Access to local device. -- Communication security. - There was a comment that identity also needs to be covered. However, in some use-cases identity might not be needed, or even desired. - It was questioned how we can prevent an application, claiming to be a browser, from sending data before getting consent. It was indicated that such a scenario is outside the scope of the WG. Negotiation and Extensibility ---------------------------- Presenter: Cullen Jennings - The presenter indicated that the solution must be extendible, and it must provide a mechanism which allows the negotiation of different features. - It was indicated that full legacy interoperability might not be possible, mostly due to security constraints, without intermediary functions on the media plane. - It was indicated that the WG needs to decide on the level on legacy interoperability. Charter: -------- - A large number of individuals had read the proposed charter text. - There was a question whether document produced by IETF and W3C needs to be approved by both SDOs. It was indicated that hopefully there will not be a need for both groups to formally approve documents of the other group, but each SDO should follow and review the work of the other group. - It was commented that the charter does not talk about legacy interoperability. - It was commented that none of the presentations have described the handling of non-RTP connections. It was indicated that the MG might want to consider sending also non-audio/video data over RTP. - It was commented that the charter should not contain a list of features that might be added to the charter at a later point. Polls: ------ - Support for chartering the group: Very strong, with no opposition. - Willingness to review documents: approx 50-60 individuals. - Willingness to write and provide text to documents: approx 24 individuals. -------------------------------------------------------------------- FRIDAY (Mary Barnes, Cullen Jennings co-chairing) Welcome, Agenda bashing, etc... - Cullen Jennings http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/dispatch-4.ppt RTC Web Charter Status: * Currently being internally reviewed by the IESG. After the IESG completes the internal review: * IESG will meet to decide if the charter is ready for external review * External review * IESG conducts final review * Charter is approved and is socialized with other SDOs Note Well Notice was presented. Big Picture Architecture - Mary Barnes Review of the current architectural proposals * Base Case - standards-based or proprietary signaling TBD * Provider Interop Case A Brain-Dump of Candidate RTC Web Work Items - Matthew Kaufman http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/dispatch-3.pdf Slide Overview: * Chartered Work * Open Questions A bunch - spanning across the work categories * Communication Model/Session Mgt Everything we do MUST be possible in a web browser Media Streams - SDP equivalent or ad hoc API2API? Provider Interop Multiparty calling - API considerations, Media considerations * Security and privacy slide * Firewall and NAT traversal * Client RT media functions * Extensibility Points * Supported Media Formats Audio? Video? * Non-Media Data Congestion control - e.g. file transfer * W3C input for APIs * Interworking with legacy VOIP Open Discussion * Non-Media Data - support of not Open discussion on whether or not to support non-media data. The issue for the group to work on is whether or not to send non-media data over RTP. * Interop Browser to browser interop - workable if deign is kept to a low level, libraries can be built to do cross browser compatibility. Discussion around real-time communications - end-2-end vs. point-2-point * Mandatory to implement Codecs? No agreement on this * Interest in Meeting? - Mary Barnes Doodle poll for next meeting Audience was polled: 40-50 people - Fairly likely to come to WebEx meeting 10 people - for face-2-face meeting before next IETF * Patent Policies Both the W3C and IETF will be working together under their respective patent policies.