[RTW] New proposed charter text. Please review before the BoF.

[Ted Hardie]

Name: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (RTCWeb)

There are a number of proprietary implementations that provide direct
interactive rich communication using audio, video, collaboration,
games, etc. between two peers' web-browsers. These are not
interoperable, as they require non-standard extensions or plugins to
work.  There is a desire to standardize the basis for such
communication so that interoperable communication can be established
between any compatible browsers. The goal is to enable innovation on
top of a set of basic components.   One core component is to enable
real-time media like audio and video, a second is to enable datagram
and byte stream data transfer directly between clients.

This work will be done in collaboration with the W3C.  The IETF WG
will produce architecture and requirements for selection and profiling
of the on the wire protocols. The architecture needs to be coordinated
with W3C.  The IETF WG work will identity state information and events
that need to be exposed in the APIs as input to W3C. The W3C will be
responsible for defining APIs to ensure that application developers
can control the components.

The security goals and requirements will be developed by the WG. The
security model needs to be coordinated with the W3C.  The work will
also consider where support for extensibility is needed. RTP
functionalities, media formats, security algorithms are example of
things that commonly needs extensions, additions or replacement, and
thus some support for negotiation between clients is required.

The WG will perform the following work:
1.     Define the communication model in detail, including how session
management is to occur within the model.
2.     Define a security model that describes the security goals and
how the communication model can achieve these goals.
3.     Define how NAT and Firewall traversal is to occur.
4.     Define which RTP functions and extensions that shall be
supported in the client and their usage for real-time media, including
media adaptation to ensure congestion safe usage.
5.     Define what functionalities in the solution, such as media
codecs, security algorithms, etc., that can be extended and how the
extensibility mechanisms works.
6.     Define a set of media formats that must or should be supported
by a client to improve interoperability.
7.     Define how non RTP datagram and byte stream data communication
between the clients can be done securely and in a congestion safe way.
8.     Provide W3C input for the APIs that comes from the
communication model and the selected components and protocols that are
part of the solution.


This work will be done primarily by using already defined protocols or
functionalities. If there is identification of missing protocols or
functionalities, such work can be requested to be done in another
working group with a suitable charter or by requests for chartering it
in this WG or another WG. 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, Location services, IM & Presence, Resource Priority.

The products of the working group will support security and keying as
required by BCP 61 and be defined for IPv4, IPv6, and dual stack
deployments. The Working Group will consider the possibility of
defining a browser component that implements an existing session
negotiation and management protocol. The working group will follow BCP
79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working group cannot
explicitly rule out the possibility of adopting encumbered
technologies; however, the working group will try to avoid encumbered
technologies that require royalties or other encumbrances that would
prevent such technologies from being easy to use in web browsers.

Milestones:

Aug 2011 Architecture and Security and Threat Model sent to W3C

Aug 2011 Use cases and Scenarios document sent to W3C

Sept 2011 Architecture and Security and Threat Model to IESG as Informational

Sept 2011 Use cases and Scenarios for RTCWeb document sent to IESG as
Informational

Dec 2011 RTCWeb and Media format specification(s) to IESG as PS

Dec 2011 Information elements and events APIs Input to W3C

Apr 2012 API to Protocol mapping document submitted to the IESG as
Informational (if needed)