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

[DRAGE, Keith (Keith)]

Nowhere have you specified in the milestones what status the intended deliverables are.

Assuming the profile is intended to be proposed standard, then presumably you need to ensure all the constituent parts are of proposed standard, or some equivalent referenceable standard in some other organisation.

Opus does not yet have a RTP payload format, although I understand one is planned, no drafts exist at the moment.

iLBC is defined as an experimental RFC - does it need to be upgraded to standards track or is there some other reference.

VP8 has no RTP payload format defined, unless it is masquerading under some other name.

Presumably you need a paragraph in the charter relating to working with other groups (in particular IETF WG) to ensure that profiled specifications exist and are brought to standards track level.

regards


Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dispatch-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:dispatch-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:54 AM
> To: 'dispatch at ietf.org'
> Cc: rtc-web at alvestrand.no
> Subject: [dispatch] Charter proposal: The activity hitherto 
> known as "RTC-WEB at IETF"
> 
> 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.
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>