[RTW] Workshop report, version one

[Harald Alvestrand]

On 10/19/10 02:25, David Singer wrote:
> A number of us talked about the fact that we needed more discussion on 
> real-time communication *on the web* i.e. what the particular 
> challenges of implementing this in a browser or integrated into the 
> web, are.  We sadly all know how hard the problem is in general; there 
> are plenty of groups working on SIP, IMS, and the like, that we don't 
> need to duplicate.
I heard the conversation, but I don't know how to capture it in the 
report, since it did not seem to have any specific conclusions drawn 
from it - what would you suggest we add to the report?

            Harald

>
>
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 15:49 , Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
>> In terms of items for further work, I believe we talked about a STUN 
>> API in Javascript, as well as the need for integration between 
>> STUN/ICE and Websockets.
>>
>> With respect to ICE, there was  some discussion about whether we were 
>> talking about ICE, ICE-lite, or ICE with HTTP/HTTPS failover.   While 
>> settling on the precise ICE functionality might not create an 
>> interoperability problem between browser A and browser B if both were 
>> connecting to the same service, if they were connecting to 
>> different services there is the potential for clients ending up with 
>> incompatible ICE Javascript libraries.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> From: hta at google.com <mailto:hta at google.com>
>> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:12:58 +0200
>> To: stefan.lk.hakansson at ericsson.com 
>> <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson at ericsson.com>
>> CC: rtc-web at alvestrand.no <mailto:rtc-web at alvestrand.no>
>> Subject: Re: [RTW] Workshop report, version one
>>
>> Good point! paragraph added.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 16:53, Stefan Håkansson LK 
>> <stefan.lk.hakansson at ericsson.com 
>> <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson at ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Harald,
>>
>>     thanks for the report. I find it accurate and well balanced, but
>>     I miss one piece:
>>
>>     There was an agreement that codec (media format) negotiation
>>     should be supported so that codecs supported by the device (maybe
>>     being HW accelerated) can be used (if both endpoints support
>>     these codecs).
>>
>>     Maybe it should go into the codec section (or "other pieces").
>>
>>     Stefan
>>
>>     ________________________________
>>
>>     From: rtc-web-bounces at alvestrand.no
>>     <mailto:rtc-web-bounces at alvestrand.no>
>>     [mailto:rtc-web-bounces at alvestrand.no
>>     <mailto:rtc-web-bounces at alvestrand.no>] On Behalf Of Harald
>>     Alvestrand
>>     Sent: den 18 oktober 2010 16:03
>>     To: rtc-web at alvestrand.no <mailto:rtc-web at alvestrand.no>
>>     Subject: [RTW] Workshop report, version one
>>
>>
>>     Enclosed (in PDF) is the first version of the RTC-Web workshop
>>     report.
>>
>>     Comments to the list, please!
>>
>>                       Harald
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list 
>> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no <mailto:RTC-Web at alvestrand.no> 
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTC-Web mailing list
>> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no <mailto:RTC-Web at alvestrand.no>
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>