W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > March 2011

Fwd: [RTW] IETF#80: RTCWEB BoF notes

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:58:49 +0200
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1EBE8ADB-41FE-4261-903B-73A52AE8B90C@w3.org>
To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
Putting this on the record on the liaison list.
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  (@roessler)







Begin forwarded message:

> From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> Date: 31 March 2011 15:30:55 GMT+02:00
> To: "rtc-web@alvestrand.no" <rtc-web@alvestrand.no>, "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
> Subject: [RTW] IETF#80: RTCWEB BoF notes
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Below are my notes from the RTCWEB BoF.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> ---------------
> 
> Collaboration with W3C:
> --------------------------
> 
> - It was noted that while IETF has the network expertise, W3C has the API expertise, and that collaboration between the group is important.
> - It was indicated, as there are people active in both IETF and W3C, it is better to rely on active collaboration driven by individuals, rather than sending liaisons between the SDOs.
> - Is was questioned whether IETF and W3C have different IPR policies.
> - It was indicated that the security model also needs to be defined in collaboration with W3C, as there are web security aspects that IETF might not have good knowledge of.
> - There was a question whether document produced by IETF and W3C needs to be approved by both SDOs. It was indicated that hopefully there will not be a need for both groups to formally approve documents of the other group, but each SDO should follow and review the work of the other group.
> - It was commented that we might need to establish a collaboration also with the WHAT WG, rather than relying on W3C for the WHAT WG collaboration.
> 
> 
> Use-cases and requirements:
> -----------------------------
> 
> Presenter: Christer Holmberg
> 
> - The presenter indicated that we need to, in order to produce API requirements, agree on the functional split between the browser and the web-app.
> - The presenter indicated that NAT/FW traversal also contains a mechanism to perform media fallback (e.g. HTTP fallback).
> 
> 
> RTC-Web Framework:
> -------------------------
> 
> Presenter: Jonathan Rosenberg
> 
> - The presenter indicated that, as the browser and web-app in most cases are produced by different organizations, we should look at the API between the browser and web-app as a protocol.
> - It was commented that we need to be careful with terminology, as an API does not dictate a protocol.
> - It was commented that the API should not be too complex for web application. It was suggested that the API might have different levels of complexity.
> - It was indicated that the browser application itself might not implement the features it offers to the web-app. Some features might also be offered by the OS, where the broswer simply provides access to those features to the web-app.
> 
> 
> Web Security:
> ---------------
> 
> Presenter: Eric Rescorla
> 
> - The following security areas, related to rtc-web, were identified:
> -- Media remote peer verification.
> -- Access to local device.
> -- Communication security.
> - There was a comment that identity also needs to be covered. However, in all use-cases identity might not be needed, or even desired.
> - It was questioned how we can prevent an application, claiming to be a browser, from sending date before getting consent. It was indicated that such scenario is outside the scope of the WG.
> 
> 
> Negotiation and Extensibility
> ----------------------------
> 
> Presenter: Cullen Jennings
> 
> - The presenter indicated that the solution must be extendible, and it must provide a mechanism which allows the negotiation of different features.
> - It was indicated that full legacy interoperability might not be possible, mostly due to security constraints, without intermediary functions on the media plane.
> - It was indicated that the WG needs to decide on the level on legacy interoperability.
> 
> 
> Charter:
> --------
> - A large number of individuals had read the proposed charter text.
> - There was a question whether document produced by IETF and W3C needs to be approved by both SDOs. It was indicated that hopefully there will not be a need for both groups to formally approve documents of the other group, but each SDO should follow and review the work of the other group.
> - It was commented that the charter does not talk about legacy interoperability.
> - It was commented that none of the presentations have described the handling of non-RTP connections. It was indicated that the MG might want to consider sending also non-audio/video data over RTP.
> - It was commented that the charter should not contain a list of features that might be added to the charter at a later point.
> 
> Poll:
> -----
> 
> - Willingness to review documents: approx 50-60 individuals.
> - Willingness to write and provide text to documents: approx 24 individuals.
> _______________________________________________
> RTC-Web mailing list
> RTC-Web@alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 13:58:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 March 2011 13:58:59 GMT