W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > September 2013

[minutes] September 3rd teleconf

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:26:51 +0200
Message-ID: <1378279611.28050.53.camel@cumulustier>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Hi,

The minutes of our WebRTC Working Group teleconf are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2013/09/03-webrtc-minutes.html

Please send corrections as needed. Minutes are also copied as text
below.

Dom


                         WebRTC Teleconference

03 Sep 2013

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/03-webrtc-irc

Attendees

   Present
          +1.407.421.aaaa, Dan_Burnett, +49.441.6.aabb,
          +46.1.07.14.aacc, tuexen, +1.403.244.aadd, stefanh,
          +91.22.39.14.aaee, +1.858.651.aaff, fluffy,
          +1.940.735.aagg, christer, Jim_Barnett, +1.630.423.aaii,
          +1.831.426.aajj, +33.2.31.26.aakk, +61.2.809.0.aall,
          silvia, +358.942.72aamm, +1.561.923.aann,
          +44.190.881.aaoo, Dan_Druta, +46.1.07.14.aapp,
          +1.650.275.aaqq, +1.831.426.aarr, hta1, matthew,
          +1.425.893.aatt, jesup, ekr, +1.908.541.aauu,
          +1.908.559.aavv, JeromeMarcon +1.267.934.aaxx,
          JeromeMarcon, pthatcher, Dini, dom, Matthew_Kaufmann,
          Martin_Thomson, jib, adam, [IPcaller]

   Regrets

   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          adambe, hta1

Contents

     * [3]Topics
     * [4]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <stefanh> agenda proposal:
   [5]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Sep/00
   05.html

      [5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Sep/0005.html

   <gmandyam> Stefan, Giri Mandyam present on phone and IRC as an
   observer

   <stefanh> scribenick: adambe

   stefanh: I posten a link to the slides
   ... we should go throug the minutes from the last meeting
   ... (walkes us through the agenda)

   <stefanh> mintes from last meeting:
   [6]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Feb/00
   26.html

      [6]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Feb/0026.html

   stefanh: last meeting minutes are from February in Boston
   ... can we approve the minutes?
   ... ok, they are approved
   ... next thing, implications of the IETF decisions
   ... juberti will talk us through the unified plan

   <ekr> He doesn't sound any more dalek-like than usual

   stefanh: I was asked to talk about what will be the next
   version of JSEP
   ... do we have any slides?

   juberti: no slides (short notice)
   ... it has been pointed out that we need normative behavior for
   createOffer/Answer/setLocal...
   ... I've talked to fluffy about it
   ... and we will have a new version in two weeks
   ... (of the JSEP draft)

   <matthew> my SIP-to-PSTN call was terrible, but SIP directly
   sounds great

   <matthew> and martin, i think you associated my [IPcaller] with
   you

   hta1: do you see any other blockers
   ... ?
   ... there are some issues that needs to be clarified in the
   unified plan before they can go into JSEP
   ... these issues are minor
   ... and shouldn't block a release of a useful JSEP draft

   ekr: (scribe didn't get this)

   <ekr> adambe: I was saying we need some way to indicate which
   flows are first class and which ones were bundle only

   thanks

   <jesup> still here

   <matthew> no, martin was first

   stefanh: juberti, do you see any API changes as a result of
   this work

   juberti: not really

   <matthew> i was on via SIP-to-PSTN with a caller id of
   831-426-xxxx, then i dropped and reconnected with SIP direct
   after martin

   juberti: we're nailing down unspecified stuff

   <matthew> if only there were some sort of identifier that an IP
   caller could be known by

   stefanh: no more questions?

   hta1: we're looking forward to a new draft

   fluffy: nothing further to add
   ... we have been focusing on the big stuff
   ... roll-back, rehydration will not be finished in the upcoming
   release

   stefanh: next thing that was decided on the IETF meeting is
   that SDES is out
   ... no changes to the API

   juberti: on consequence, what do we need to expose regarding
   the certificate

   ekr: I can take an action to come up with a proposal

   <ekr> action, ekr to come up with a proposal for access to DTLS
   meta-data

   <dom> ACTION: eric to come up with a proposal for DTLS
   meta-data [recorded in
   [7]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/03-webrtc-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-86 - Come up with a proposal for dtls
   meta-data [on Eric Rescorla - due 2013-09-10].

   <ekr> dom: thanks

   hta1: stefanh, it's your turn to talk about transport related
   APIs

   <stefanh>
   [8]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Sep/at
   t-0006/Transport_related_API_needs.pdf

      [8]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Sep/att-0006/Transport_related_API_needs.pdf

   stefanh: yes, I'll post a link to the slides
   ... we've set up a wiki page called "transport control" were we
   gather information
   ... example of control: pause/resume
   ... priority

   <matthew>
   [9]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/Transport_Control

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/Transport_Control

   <ekr> matthew: thanks

   stefanh: (is going through the list on the wiki)
   ... people want to set bitrate/bandwidth
   ... last thing is to disable bundle

   juberti: I don't see anything about simulcast

   stefanh: that's a good input
   ... we are now allowing two tracks in the same stream that use
   the same source
   ... the app can configure the tracks to have different
   resolutions

   juberti: that won't work for layerd codecs
   ... the tracks will get different ids

   stefanh: that's good input
   ... please send this input to the list

   jesup: we need some relation between the tracks

   <hta1> Martin: What happens if we want to control everything
   that's part of the SDP? How do we rule them out of scope or
   bring them in scope if you want them to be inside?

   <dom> scribenick: hta1

   <martin> I'm concerned that some of the things in the SDP offer
   are not reflective of the capabilities of the browser. If we
   want to permit some of these alterations, then it's going to be
   difficult to discover browser capabilities just through an SDP
   offer.

   <matthew> i think there's two problems. 1) why is ptime (for
   instance) not on this list (how did it get to be out of scope)
   and 2) how for things that can be set to values other than what
   is in the offer can we know what are valid values? (example is
   if i create an offer and it has ptime 30, i have no info about
   whether or not ptime 5 is valid)

   <matthew> (valid as input for setlocaldescription)

   cullen: need to consider what we need to manipulate, and
   providing API surfaces to avoid SDP munging if possible.

   <juberti> agreed

   cullen: example: ptime - opus has the minptime and maxptime
   parameters, which could be managed by sdp munging.

   <martin> ptime is interesting for large BDP, because it might
   offer some latency benefits

   hta: suggest to start with the bandwidth issue.

   jesup: bandwidth bug has had no action in ages, because we have
   had other issues.
   ... initial bandwidth and target bandwidth are different
   issues.

   juberti: starting bandwidth is important for fast start.

   cullen: fast ramp-up will get pushback from the transport
   people at ietf.

   juberti: starting and minimum are other interesting bandwidth -
   quality below minimum may want to disconnect

   <stefanh> +1 to juberti

   <martin> justin, do you regard minimum as a "if you go below X,
   don't bother" sort of setting?

   <matthew> i believe comment 22 now applies. having the
   application be in control of how bandwidth is allocated to its
   streams is a great idea.

   randell: application guessing is guaranteed to be an imperfect
   guess. there is no great solution.

   <martin> jesup, disagree about the last mile being the
   determining factor

   <Cow_woC> (Sorry for joining late, how far down the agenda are
   we? Did we reach "V2 API discussions: How to handle"?)

   juberti: we can't prevent people from writing bad apps. they
   will set the values to what they believe they can use.
   ... what we should not do for 1.0 is to manage the bandwidth up
   or down based on packet loss. This shoudl be within the
   runtime.

   <Cow_woC> silvia: Thank you.

   jesup: api should allow to set bandwidth allocation between
   flows, current bandwidth should be exposed, but not to exceed
   available.

   juberti: basically agree.

   ekr: we should not allow the application to generate more
   bandwidth than it would normally be entitled to.

   <Cow_woC> hta1: What about being able to specify (what we
   believe) to be the minimum bandwidth usage? Meaning, I am
   starting a 1080p video chat. I don't want the video to start at
   50kb/s because the users will get blurry/choppy video.
   Alternatively, find a way to get the vendors to scale up
   bandwidth usage *much* faster.

   <martin> it would be bad if an app could start sending at
   100Mbps

   <jesup> hta1: Right, you can only reallocate bits among flows
   (or reduce total bits), not increase the number of bits (in my
   proposal)

   ekr: you shouldn't be able to set initial bandwidth so that you
   can generate high traffic before we know that it arrives.

   <martin> jesup's bug is
   [10]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861

     [10] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861

   <matthew> martin: that depends on how you define "bad". there's
   whole communities of folks who'd love such a capability.

   <Cow_woC> Question: How do we get 1080p video chat to start
   smooth/sharp within 3 seconds as opposed to 1 minute which it
   is now?

   <matthew> cow_woc: run 1080p worth of data traffic for 5
   minutes before you want to make a call

   <jesup> Cow_woC: that's an issue of the congestion algorithm:
   it can be more agressive at the start of a call

   <matthew> (to the same destination you'll be calling or called
   from, of course)

   <Cow_woC> matthew: That's a non-solution as far as I'm
   concerned :)

   Cow_woC: you wishing it does not make it possible,
   unfortunately.

   <jesup> You also can do *rough* packet-train guestimate to help
   guide the starting rate.

   <matthew> if we care about that shared medium, we should be
   TCP-friendly.

   <Cow_woC> jesup: Fine, how do I mandate that? Right now I have
   no way to guarantee that my users will get a good experience
   nor any guarantee that the problem will ever be fixed for any
   given vendor. I'm looking for the specification to mandate
   something here to ensure a decent user experience.

   <matthew> and TCP-friendly isn't compatible with an
   international 4k video call starting instantly at full
   resolution

   juberti: might want to let the initial BW control the initial
   bandwidth estimate.

   <ekr> Cow_woC: the problem is that this is not compatible with
   the stability of the Interet

   <jesup> Cow_woC: We can't mandate the internet (or a congestion
   algorithm) will produce a specific result

   <jesup> Please join RMCAT :-)

   <Cow_woC> ekr, matthew: I don't want to break the internet :)
   but the question then is... how come I can download a 1GB file
   from Dropbox at crazy speeds? The download speed ramps up
   almost instantaneously. If HTTP uploads/downloads can do that,
   why can't WebRTC?

   <ekr> It doesn't ramp up almost instantaneously.

   <ekr> It actually takes a number of RTTs.

   <martin> hta: we should treat application input as "what the
   app desires", but there needs to be a hard limit that is
   determined by our algorithms, and that's what RMCAT is for

   <jesup> Cow_woC: and the current ramp-up is a low sloter than
   it *needs* to be

   <Cow_woC> ekr: It's on the order of 3 seconds, not 5 minutes
   like matthew mentioned... Clearly WebRTC has a problem.

   <ekr> Cow_woC: moreover, rate control on video streams has to
   have a lot more hysterisis than data

   <martin> jesup, whether ramp-up is too slow or not is probably
   subject to conjecture

   <ekr> because of the way that video works

   <Cow_woC> jesup: Fair enough. Is there anything we can do on
   the specification level to ensure all implementations are more
   aggressive on this end?

   <ekr> Cow

   <ekr> _woC: yes, join the RMCAT WG

   <jesup> Cow_woC: File bugs with Chrome and Mozilla, and join
   RMCAT

   <matthew> i didn't say it would take 5 minutes.. but i did say
   that 5 minutes of stream would be sufficient :)

   cullen: sending for 10 seconds at full HD bandwidth is
   unacceptable on a shared network.

   <ekr> cullen++

   <Cow_woC> matthew: In my experience, it is at least 1 minute.

   <jesup> I *think* the current impl doesn't ramp as fast as it
   can at the start; after you've established an idea of the max
   rate you want to ramp slowly when going past that

   cullen: ramp-up is one of the reasons why applications want to
   send early media.

   <jesup> hta1: reasonable.

   hta: proposal - set the bandwidth as a constraint on
   PeerConnection. It's simple, it gets ut out the door, we can
   extend stuff later.

   <jesup> And the other layer of objects makes some sense, but
   may be more work to specify

   <ekr> hta1: that works for me

   <martin> stefanh: everyone wants max, but there are mixed views
   on min and initial values

   <jesup> hta1: It is

   stefanh: min bandwidth can also be useful, and simple.

   justin: 1.0 with max sounds good. mixed views on whether
   initial is useful.

   <jesup> hta1: It's meant to solve the general problem with
   multiple streams

   topic switch: codecs

   <juberti> what do you suggest that min bandwidth would do on a
   peerconnection?

   <juberti> if the estimated bandwidth drops below the minimum,
   what happens?

   cullen: about codecs - people have been adding codecs, which is
   obviously bogus. the valid operations are removing and
   reordering codecs.
   ... the question is if we need a specific API surface for this.

   cullen: the people who say they need this have not been able to
   describe (to cullen) compelling use cases for this.

   <ekr> Cow_woC: start speaking

   <Cow_woC> Sorry guys, I'm new to this system.

   <dom> Cow_woC, are you on the call?

   <Cow_woC> If bandwidth drops below minimum, I propose
   triggering a callback

   <Cow_woC> Sorry, only on IRC

   OK, then you cannot participate in the verbal discussion.

   <Cow_woC> I made a proposal a few weeks ago, asking for "fence
   conditions". You register min/max bandwidth and a callback gets
   invoked if this condition is violated. The callback then
   modifies the fence conditions and the process continues.

   justin: case heard is that people can't do SWB so only want to
   offer WB or narrowband.
   ... use case is where there are browsers on both sides, running
   the same app, and app dev wants to control the codec

   cullen: we may want to configure the session for real low
   latency.

   justin: controlling music mode vs speech mode is a poster
   child.

   <adambe> Cow_woC: are you able to join the call (find phone
   info in this mail
   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Sep/0
   005.html)

     [11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Sep/0005.html)

   martin: stats API could be an useful place to expose what the
   congestion control algorithm currently thinks is available.

   <fluffy> +1 Martin

   <Cow_woC> adambe: Trying now.

   <Cow_woC> adambe: (thank you!)

   hta: sdp munging can't control Opus music / speech mode. We
   need API surface to control it.

   <jesup> hta1: we were planning on something like that

   <martin> it sort of can: music mode can be achieved with
   a=max-ptime=5

   justin: punting these features to 2.0 may be the simplest thing
   to do here.

   <martin> But it's hard to know if doing that it possible...

   justin: suggest punting all the codec control things to
   post-1.0

   cullen: strong desire for controlling silence suppression.

   justin, randell: we already have that.

   cullen: reorder or remove codecs - don't do it in the 1.0
   timeframe.

   justin: agc is a topic that we need to consider. it's not
   really a transport control thingy.
   ... bundle, bandwidth should be global constraints on the peer
   connection.

   <jesup> justin: agc, AEC, noise suppression are all more
   getUserMedia issues than peerconnectionissues, IMHO

   cullen: see a need for priority. should be a property on the
   mediastreamtrack.

   justin: mst is the wrong place, since it doesn't really connect
   to the transport. We don't have a good place to set this
   property.

   <silvia> if we can get bandwidth limitations into global
   constraints, that would be a good step forward

   <matthew> comment 22 definitely applies now. there should be an
   object that reflects the transport separately from the object
   that represents the media, then we could talk about
   prioritization APIs on that transport object.

   cullen: priority should reflect into DSCP levels.

   justin: relative priority may be good enough for version 1.

   <martin> matthew, yes. This applies to bandwidth, priority, and
   all sorts of stuff.

   <Cow_woC> matthew: Agreed.

   <matthew> the problem with the "v2 API discussion" is that
   there shouldn't be this v1 API

   <matthew> so clearly the numbering is wrong

   <Cow_woC> matthew: :)

   stefanh: people want priorities on tracks.

   <jesup> ekr++

   ekr: priorities don't sound too hard. and they're useful.

   dand: priorities sounds like apps developers need it in the
   first release.

   <ekr> no objection

   <stefanh> no objection!

   <burn> publish!

   hta: suggest making the current editor's draft the WD.

   No objections noted.

   stefanh presents v2 discussion - chairs reserve right to move
   discussion to wiki or separate list.

   <matthew> the people working on the "v1" should have better
   self-control and keep working on it, instead of reading the
   other messages

   cullen: no benefit in starting the v2 discussion on this
   mailing list.

   stefanh: don't want to push people away

   cullen: we have formed a new group in the W3C, we should be
   pushing them in that direction.

   <matthew> the discussions might have gone even better if the
   people working on the current abomination would refrain from
   responding to those messages, too

   <burn> the people working on "v2" should have better
   self-control and stop working on it, instead of generating lots
   of messages :)

   ekr: use case discussions about what we are sad about in the
   current api are good to have.
   ... we can have endless debates on which dot version things
   should be in.
   ... triage between v1 and v2 features seems completely
   appropriate for this group.

   <matthew> i don't care which list we have the conversations on,
   because we'll just follow the one that works for us

   cow_woc: be careful not to make architectural decisions in 1.0
   that prevent certain features in version 2.

   <matthew> feels like we've already made those decisions

   <matthew> for some value of "we"

   cow_woc: if v1 makes too many promises you can't remove those
   promises in v2.

   cullen: all proposals claim that v1 can be built on top of v2.
   I don't want to be back to discussing low level APIs.

   <burn> cow_woc, I agree that v1 must not prevent a v2, and to
   that extent it's important to have joint discussions.
   Officially, there is likely to be no official v2 work in this
   group until v1 is closer to done, regardless of where proposals
   leading to v2 are developed.

   <martin> hta, that's a very strange statement to make: old
   applications should be able to use new features ???

   hta: worried about losing some properties, such as
   future-proofing of applications.

   <ekr> martin: why is that strange?

   <martin> because those features weren't requested, perhaps?

   <ekr> For instance, I would like browsers to automatically use
   VP9 if it was added

   <burn> btw Cow_woC, who are you? I can't hear well on the call.

   <ekr> Or HEVC

   <matthew> "v1" won't be done until there is a complete
   specification of what comes out and goes in at all the SDP API
   interfaces. the likelyhood of that being complete in the next
   2-3 years is nil. so why not start on the next one now?

   <Cow_woC> burn: Sorry, calling on Skype.

   Cow_woC: <not able to capture that argument>

   <martin> if I write an application, I would have expected that
   the application continue to work as written, without surprising
   changes. New codecs are something that I might have left in the
   hands of the browser, in which case, no problem.

   <martin> I was thinking about new features of a different
   nature than just codecs.

   <ekr> martin: well, I would expect that for instance, BUNDLE
   would work if introduced later

   <matthew> 2 minutes over. leaving.

   <burn> Cow_woC, who are you? We need it for the minutes as
   well. (sorry if I missed it)

   <martin> bye

   <ekr> burn: cow_woc is Gili

   <Cow_woC> hta1: I was trying to say that a proposal was made a
   few months ago that SDP should be an "opaque token" instead of
   the specification promising the use of SDP or explaining what's
   inside it. This prevents v2 from changing the meaning of SDP or
   removing it altogether.

   stefanh: what I hear now is that we should limit discussion
   related to v2 and focus on finalizing version 1.

   <Cow_woC> ekr: Yes, that's right.

   <martin> ekr, I would hope that the browser wouldn't add bundle
   if I had been successfully using it without.

   <ekr> martin: Hmm… That's not what I would have expected

   <ekr> Would you be sad if it added AES-GCM?

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: eric to come up with a proposal for DTLS
   meta-data [recorded in
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/03-webrtc-minutes.html#action02]

   [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 07:27:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:16:41 UTC