[RTW] WG charter, take 4

[Magnus Westerlund]

Hi,

I just want to say that I am involved in discussions with Harald and
Cullen about my comments on the charter. I do hope that by early next
week there will be something to show from this discussion.

Cheers

Magnus

Magnus Westerlund skrev 2011-02-25 16:01:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry for not having produced these charter comments earlier as most
> would apply to earlier versions also. However, I do have a number of
> comments on it and think the charter could be restructured to become a
> much better charter. But lets start with the different comments.
> 
> The most fundamental issue with the charter is that it contains to much
> technical solution candidates, rather than talking about the goals and
> and general direction for achieving them. I think one needs to extract
> the few higher level goals from this list and work them into the charter
> in other ways. Certain things we likely can select, like RTP. But there
> is clearly a question on what profile and extensions that should be
> supported.
> 
> I also think one of the biggest uncertainties and fuzziness in the
> charter is because the model isn't agreed on. The discussion about the
> session management is clear due to that the model for the work aren't
> agreed on. I see two ways here. Either we manage to lock down the model
> prior to the chartering, or we have a charter that included this model
> discussion. Frankly I see the later as most likely as agreement on the
> model will require agreement with IETF's partner in this work. Thus the
> charter should take a bit more height for having such model discussion.
> 
> It is already obvious that any codec selection for this is going to be a
> difficult and possibly take time. To avoid this from de-railing the
> truly fundamental parts of the RTC-WEB solution, I am suggesting that
> this should be taken in its own WG, or if not possible at least as a
> separate WG item, with its own deadlines, so that it doesn't hold up
> the main work. That is likely anyway a good idea for long term purpose,
> so that only the codec selection part can be updated, and not the
> fundamental part when the set of codecs become out-dated.
> 
> I still don't understand the diffserv based QoS. This seems very
> unrealistic to be usable from a web-browser perspective. This as no
> device in any setting other than being an ISP controlled device is
> likely to be allowed to set DSCP. I think QoS can be excluded at this
> stage completely. Especially as there are a lack of methods for
> providing end-point devices with a traffic class to DSCP mapping valid
> in the currently attached network.
> 
> The charter could also be clearer on the need for basic datagram and
> byte stream functionality between two peers. The higher motivation for
> it is there, but not requirements. Where I see rate control and
> security of those channels being the most important ones.
> 
> I am also missing a clear requirement for enabling future extensions of
> functionality of the RTC-WEB components in the browser. I see this as
> important as we can hopefully arrive at the basic functionality
> reasonably quick, but there will be certain set of functionalities that
> are desirable but not quickly arrived agreed upon and specified. We need
> a method for enabling introduction of these in the future.
> 
> I also think one can clarify the last deliverable to actually be
> requirements on signaling and the API. Different functionalities will
> have different requirements when it comes to data objects needing
> exchange and also how the negotiation between the peers happens.
> 
> I am also missing a clearer requirement in ensuring that this becomes a
> network friendly traffic source. There is clearly need for congestion
> control and media adaptation as part of the basic solution.
> 
> As have been raised security is an important part of this work. I think
> we need to ensure that the WG first establish a security model, and then
> follows it in development. I fully agree that there should be no
> separate documents, this should be part of the general architecture, as
> it is such a fundamental part.
> 
> I am willing to provide an alternative charter proposal, if there is
> interest, attempting to take these comments into consideration.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------