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

[David Singer]

Ted, friends

I just submitted comments to the W3C, and I am kinda duplicating them here.

Here is what I said to the W3C:
"Our major comment is duplicated to the IETF group; we think that a major deliverable of these two groups is the interface between them - the overall architecture in which they work. This is variously described as "APIs" and "Javascript interfaces" in the activity proposal, but it needs to be an overall architecture in which at least one specific instance (e.g. using existing codecs and protocols) can be instantiated. From the W3C point of view, that might involve markup, DOM, APIs, and even possibly CSS. The two efforts don't just need to 'run in parallel', they need to produce a joint architecture that makes their work mesh together, and also enable continuing development (e.g. new modules with enhanced behavior, behind the same APIs)."

For the two groups to work together well, establishing the architecture and the points of interface is going to be important.  And that architecture should, as much as possible, enable not just today's best technology (e.g. RTP, SIP) but also permit work in, and development of, improvements over time, to the greatest extent possible.

Maybe this is obvious to all concerned.

On Mar 17, 2011, at 9:18 , Ted Hardie wrote:

> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.