[RTW] Charter proposal: The activity hitherto known as "RTC-WEB at IETF"

[Harald Alvestrand]

On 01/06/2011 01:49 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 6:53 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> This is the first of 3 messages going to the DISPATCH list (in the hope of keeping discussions somewhat organized).
>>
>> This is the draft of a charter for an IETF working group to consider the subject area of "Real time communication in the Web browser platform". This is one of a paired set of activities, the other one being a W3C activity (either within an existing WG or in a new WG) that defines APIs to this functionality.
>>
>> The two other messages will contain the W3C proposed charter and a kickoff for what's usually the most distracting topic in any such discussion: The name of the group.
> Dear Harold;
>
> Just to be clear, your intent is to have simultaneously a W3C WG and an IETF WG on this issue ?
>
> Shouldn't there be some text about coordination between these efforts ? I don't see much discussion in either
> charter as to which is gating, but it seems to me that the W3C work would have to be gated on the IETF work. Isn't there a danger that
> the W3C WG might start building on early solutions discussed in the IETF, only to have the IETF WG decide to go in a different direction ?
If either effort fails, we don't have an usable result, so that is 
indeed very key. As proposed, I think the IETF work gates the W3C work.

The IETF charter says:

The working group will cooperate closely with the W3C activity that specifies a semantic level API that allows the control and manipulation of all the functionality above.

The W3C charter says:



      External Groups

@@@ IETF group on related protocol
    The RTC APIs developed by this group will build upon the protocols
    and formats developed in the IETF @@@ Working Group.

What more words would you suggest we put in?

Finding enough people who have the time to run back and forth between 
them is a key activity; I for one am allocated to this effort, so I'll 
be running.

                      Harald


> Regards
> Marshall
>
>
>> Without further ado:
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> Version: 2
>>
>> Possible Names:
>> <This space deliberately left blank for later discussion>
>>
>> Body:
>>
>> Many implementations have been made that use a Web browser to support interactive communications directly between users including voice, video, collaboration and gaming, but until now, such applications have required the installation of nonstandard plugins and browser extensions. There is a desire to standardize such functionality, so that this type of application can be run in any compatible browser.
>>
>> Traditionally, the W3C has defined API and markup languages such as HTML that work in conjunction with with the IETF over the wire protocols such as HTTP to allow web browsers to display media that does not have real time interactive constraints with another human.
>>
>> The W3C and IETF plan to collaborate together in their traditional way to meet the evolving needs of browsers. Specifically the IETF will provide a set of on the wire protocols, including RTP, to meet the needs on interactive communications, and the W3C will define the API and markup to allow web application developers to control the on the wire protocols. This will allow application developers  to write applications that run in a browser and facilitate interactive communications between users for voice and video communications, collaboration, and gaming.
>>
>> This working group will select and define a minimal set of protocols that will enable browsers to:
>>
>> * have interactive real time voice and video between users using RTP
>> * interoperate with compatible voice and video systems that are not web based
>> * support direct flows of non RTP application data between browsers for collaboration and gaming applications
>>
>> Fortunately very little development of new protocol at IETF is required for this, only selection of existing protocols and selection of minimum capabilities to ensure interoperability. The following protocols are candidates for including in the profile set:
>>
>> 1) RTP/ RTCP
>>
>> 2) a baseline audio codec for high quality interactive audio. Opus
>> will be considered as one of the candidates
>>
>> 3) a baseline audio codec for PSTN interoperability. G.711 and iLBC
>> will be considered
>>
>> 4) a baseline video codec. H.264 and VP8 will be considered
>>
>> 5) Diffserv based QoS
>>
>> 6) NAT traversal using ICE
>>
>> 7) RFC 4833 based DTMF transport
>>
>> 8) RFC 4574 based Label support for identifying streams purpose
>>
>> 9) Secure RTP and keying
>>
>> 10) support for IPv4, IPv6 and dual stack browsers
>>
>> The working group will cooperate closely with the W3C activity that specifies a semantic level API that allows the control and manipulation of all the functionality above. In addition, the API needs to communicate state information and events about what is happening in the browser that to applications running in the browser. These events and state need to include information such as: receiving RFC 4833 DTMF, RTP and RTCP statistics, state of DTLS/SRTP,  and signalling state.
>>
>> The following topics will be out of scope for the initial phase of the WG but could be added after a recharter: RTSP, RSVP, NSIS, LOST, Geolocation, IM&  Presence, NSIS, Resource Priority,
>>
>> Milestones:
>>
>> February 2011 Candidate "sample" documents circulated to DISPATCH
>>
>> March 2011 BOF at IETF Prague
>>
>> April 2011 WG charter approved by IESG. Chosen document sets adopted as WG documents
>>
>> May 2011 Functionality to include and main alternative protocols identified
>>
>> July 2011 IETF meeting
>>
>> Aug 2011 Draft with text reflecting agreement of what the protocol set should be
>>
>> Nov 2010 Documentation specifying mapping of protocol functionality to W3C-specified API produced
>>
>> Dec 2011 Protocol set specification to IESG
>>
>> April 2012 API mapping document to IESG
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTC-Web mailing list
>> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/attachments/20110106/cc0b0920/attachment.html>