Minutes of June 14 meeting

The minutes of yesterday's meeting are available here:


The important action points:

ACTION: Göran to propose a first draft of requirements document
ACTION: Harald will prepare a call for contributions and make sure the 
WHATWG draft is contributed
ACTION: Harald to create a Doodle poll for next call meeting date.
ACTION: Stefan to find someone to monitor DAP for RTC.

The minutes in text format are below. If you have corrections, please 
send them to the mailing list for processing. If you want to discuss the 
matters discussed in the meeting, please *change the subject line* to 
reflect the topic you want to discuss!

                     Harald, for the chairs

                                - DRAFT -

        Web Real-Time Communications Working Group Teleconference
                               14 Jun 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Jun/0005

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/14-webrtc-irc


           Caroline, StefanH, Salvatore, nstratford, Tim, Matt, Alissa,
           Dan, hta, Druta, Cullen, Rian, Wu_Chou

           Francois, Dan_Burnett

           Harald, Stefan



      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]IETF meeting
          2. [6]Proposal to adopt API as one starting point
          3. [7]API requirements
          4. [8]F2F meetings
          5. [9]Agreement with DAP on streams generation
          6. [10]Any other business?
      * [11]Summary of Action Items

<hta> Can someone fix the topic line? It's 1600Z, not 1700Z...

<trackbot> Date: 14 June 2011

<hta> "the conference is restricted at this time". Only open after

<Salvatore> is it possible joining using SIP ?

<hta> Technical issues. I'm getting a coffee while we wait.

<StefanH> anyone getting into the conf bridge?

<anant> nope, still says restricted

<Salvatore> the same for me

<StefanH> very strange; according to
    it should be on now

      [12] http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_4756

<Wu> We cannot get on to the conference bridge. What is the correct
    conference code 78294?

<StefanH> @Wu: should work now

<hta> Wu, yes it is. what error did you get?

<anant> Wu: yes, followed by #

<hta> rian

<scribe> scribe: Matt

<scribe> Agenda:

      [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Jun/0005

IETF meeting

    hta: IETF is trying to get focus. Getting clarity on some things,
    and not on others.
    ... We know we'll be managing RTP data is for sure, how is not so
    ... Security requirements discussion, how much is needed and how to
    apply it.
    ... Congestion control is a hot topic, IETF says it's not optional
    to go without.

    cullenfluffyjenn1: One comment on the notes: the comment that the
    datagram transport looks like DTLS, was the direction people were
    going. I took that differently as one of the possibilities.
    ... I don't think there is agreement on that.

    hta: I can't see anyone proposing anything else in that context.

    cullenfluffyjenn1: Some are proposing DTLS over DCCP over UDP, which
    has application layer congestion control.

    hta: Other questions about IETF meeting?

<cullenfluffyjenn1> Some people proposing DTLS/UDP some

<derf> Yes.

Proposal to adopt API as one starting point

    hta: I think this will be the main discussion. The Google/WHATWG API
    has been written up and is being discussed.

    matt: Was that one starting point or a starting point?

    hta: English translation maybe it is not "THE starting point". We
    don't want to do anything that would preclude anyone coming up with
    another proposal.

    Wu: Can you post a link to the proposed starting point?

<Wu> Wu


      [14] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/webrtc.html

    -> [15]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/webrtc.html
    WebRTC API from WHATWG

      [15] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/webrtc.html

    cullenfluffyjenn1: I am a little confused. If we adopted this, what
    would you want people to provide? Changes? Or alternatives?

    hta: My preferred way to go forward would be both approaches. If
    people think this is something that is useful they propose changes,
    and if the feedback is that it isn't any good, that we work on an
    ... If there are multiple sets of requirements and this fulfills one
    of them, and then we may need additional APIs, which others can

    cullenfluffyjenn1: I'd like to see more discussion on this doc, or
    other alternatives before making this decision.
    ... I imagine we could change this document to meet our needs, but
    given that there's been zero talk about it, I think it's too early
    to make that decision.

    StefanH: One of the reasons to have this, is because the discussion
    is going on outside of the WG. Otherwise there would be parallel
    discussion elsewhere.

    cullenfluffyjenn1: Is the author on the call? Can they move it to
    this group?

    hta: The author has promised to take input, but not read all mailing

    Wu: I would suggest we establish a set of applications that the spec
    intends to support.

<hta> Matt, the author is Ian Hickson.

    Wu: Then we examine these APIs and decide if these are sufficient,
    and if not how we can improve the API. I think we should establish
    requirements first before locking into an API.

    StefanH: I agree, we should not lock into one API at this stage.
    This proposal is just one proposal.
    ... We encourage other alternatives.

    cullenfluffyjenn1: How do you want to get alternative proposals?

    Wu: Our plan should be to establish the supported applications and
    requirements. Look at the potential APIs and look at whether they
    support those applications. e.g. look and see if Google's API
    supports our application requirements.

<alissa> will write in the chat

<alissa> In DAP we took inputs from individual members

<alissa> e.g.,


<alissa> rather than making every API a working draft of the group

<alissa> although we also have some working drafts that will
    probably never go to rec as well...just offering it as a suggestion

    hta: I don't know if that is reasonable, or if we're using language
    wrong. We'd like to have the document as an official input into the
    WG, that is clearly contributed to the WG.

<alissa> in my experience "working draft" in the W3C and "WG draft"
    in the IETF are not exactly the same thing

    Wu: One process would be to invite Member Submissions.
    ... I would treat Google API as a Member Submission.

    hta: This API does not belong to Google, it claims no rights to it
    or it's contents. The Editor works for Google but that is all.

    Wu: Someone should submit it, it then does not represent the
    position of the WG. A WD is arrived at from consensus in the WG.

    cullenfluffyjenn1: Plus one.

<alissa> who would the member submission come from if it's not
    written by a member (e.g., if whatwg is not a W3C member)?

    hta: Is it a consensus position from the WG that the chairs should
    solicit input from the members for proposals and about the WHATWG

<alissa> (i.e., if Google is not submitting it)

    cullenfluffyjenn1: Yes, but who would the submission come from.
    Which member brings it in, or how W3C handles this...

    Wu: I think the typical practice is that members or multiple members
    can jointly or individually can submit input to a WG, and then the
    WG can work on it, but it does not just become the WD. WD are based
    on consensus of the WG.

<alissa> agreed on submissions being able to come from multiple
    members. DAP had contributions from BONDI, don't think BONDI was a
    member (it's a consortium)

    Wu: From example the ?? was submitted by IBM and others. The final
    WD had to be drafted by the WG and get WG consensus.

    hta: The chairs will create a call for submissions and send to the
    mailing list.

    anant: Is there another proposal beyond the WHATWG API?

    hta: If so, I am unaware.

<anant> no worries!

<derf> Phones are hard.

<derf> But that's the subject of a different working group.

<scribe> ACTION: Harald will prepare a call for contributions and
    make sure the WHATWG draft is contributed [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - will prepare a call for contributions
    and make sure the WHATWG draft is contributed [on Harald Alvestrand
    - due 2011-06-21].

API requirements

    Wu: I would recommend that you post the link of these requirement
    documents for the record please.

<cullenfluffyjenn1> I'll post the link - just a sec

    Wu: The minutes will be public, so we do this so the public can view
    what we discussed.


      [18] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holmberg-rtcweb-ucreqs-01

    -> [19]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holmberg-rtcweb-ucreqs-01
    Web Real-Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements

      [19] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holmberg-rtcweb-ucreqs-01

    hta: The use cases themselves have a good reason to live in a place
    in common between IETF and W3C.
    ... The requirements on the API would probably have a better home in
    a W3C WD.

    matt: Sounds right to me.

    hta: To make this happen, we need a draft and an editor.

    StefanH: Göran is not on the call, but he has promised that he can
    edit this document.

    hta: Sounds like a reasonable start.

<scribe> ACTION: Göran to propose a first draft of requirements
    document [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Propose a first draft of requirements
    document [on Göran Eriksson - due 2011-06-21].


<trackbot> ACTION-2 -- Göran Eriksson to propose a first draft of
    requirements document -- due 2011-06-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/track/actions/2

      [21] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/track/actions/2

    hta: I bet StefanH will ask for a reasonable date from Goran and
    we'll get back to it.

F2F meetings

    hta: We don't have certainty on when we'll have the meeting in
    Quebec City, but either Saturday or Sunday before the IETF meeting.

    cullenfluffyjenn1: With my IETF hat on, Gonzalo from the IESG is
    handling this right now. I know he's pursuing getting us a room for
    Saturday, but didn't have one yet.

    hta: Would be great to have actual documents at the F2F and have
    technical discussions there. Seems like we can get there.

    TPAC dates: 31 October to 4 November 2011

    -> [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/ TPAC agenda

      [22] http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/

    hta: Francois is trying to schedule us for Monday and Tuesday of
    that week.

    DanR: Did Gonzalo mention if there would be network running?

    cullenfluffyjenn1: We didn't talk about that. For some other
    meetings, the code sprint, the Internet of things hackfest, etc, are
    expecting to have network. I hope we will, but didn't discuss it.

    hta: We'll have to come back on the mailing list for discussion
    about the agenda and so on.

Agreement with DAP on streams generation

<Dan> that was Dan (R) not Wu

    StefanH: DAP has camera API for files and images, while we would
    handle streams.

    hta: No comments? Then we will do that going forward.
    ... And what about the inverse? Do we need to have some of our
    requirements turned back into DAP for control of things like
    microphone settings.
    ... Before we get the requirements down it is hard to tell if we
    will have to do that, but it is a possibility.
    ... We'll take that discussion to the list too.
    ... More reasonable to discuss that after requirements.

    matt: Is anyone in RTC also in DAP?

    hta: I'm on the mailing list.

<alissa> I'm a member of DAP but not very active.

    matt: I'm just thinking you might want someone who is the eyes and
    ears of RTC for DAP, so you can see when things are going to
    overlap, or drop, or whatever.

    hta: We could make an action item for someone to be the DAP/RTC

<scribe> ACTION: StefanH to find someone to monitor DAP for RTC.
    [recorded in

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - StefanH

<scribe> ACTION: Stefan to find someone to monitor DAP for RTC.
    [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Find someone to monitor DAP for RTC.
    [on Stefan Håkansson - due 2011-06-21].

Any other business?

    hta: Anything?

    cullenfluffyjenn1: I have a technical question that I'd love to get
    input from people.
    ... Do we think that the API needs to be able to expose up what the
    codec capabilities are up to the JavaScript level?
    ... One way would be to let the lower layer deal with it, another
    would be to let the API sort it out. Have people thought about this?
    Strong feelings?

    StefanH: There should be a way to negotiate the codec, but that
    doesn't mean it has to be exposed in JavaScript.

    anant: I think it's important for JavaScript to expose capabilities
    to webapps. Take the teleconference scenario, the negotiation needs
    to happen at the app layer to figure out what codec should be used.

    hta: As a contributor: I've had pushback in the past saying that the
    API needs to be designed so that it is possible to use it without
    caring about those details.
    ... The WHATWG proposal separates these a bit into stuff that is
    opaque and stuff that the app needs to know
    ... The codec information is hidden in the opaque blobs of data.
    ... The need to be able to do an application without caring about
    codecs and still get them correctly negotiated is a requirement for
    people I talked to.

    anant?: We still need cross platform work. If we have codecs that
    don't work, we need the app to know that.

    Tim: There are also app specific modes that an app may want to
    support, e.g. a music mode and talk? mode. Which one you use depends
    on the application. While you may not care which one is used, but if
    you could it'd be better.

    cullenfluffyjenn1: I like that you can do it without worrying, but
    it is important to be able to understand what is going on when there
    is a failure. Parameterize speech vs music, big video vs little,

    anant: I am for specifying sane defaults: an app doesn't have to
    care about codecs. But we need to expose it, whether all apps use it
    or not.

    StefanH: I'd like to bring this into the recent discussion of ICE. I
    think a use case is to do this without having to implement ICE

    hta: Of the people who have strong opinions on what applications can
    be and need: please think about whether you can contribute text for
    a use case.
    ... That way we capture the use cases in which features are needed
    as we go forward.

    matt: Where should text go? ML or wiki, or...

    hta: If the contributor is active in IETF, send it to their mailing
    list, if not webrtc mailing list. Someone there can carry it

    Action Items

    StefanH: Should we have another call before IETF?

    hta: Good question, but you'll have to handle it as I am on holiday
    the next three weeks.
    ... Want another call?

    cullenfluffyjenn1: Yes, calls help make progress.

    hta: You're volunteering then!

    cullenfluffyjenn1: Will it maybe make sense to have a call three
    weeks before the IETF? I think we should have one well before the
    meeting at the IETF, so that everyone can prep, etc.

    matt: The calls also serve as a good heartbeat. They let you know
    whether you've made progress or not every single week.

    hta: If we go five weeks that's 5 July.

    cullenfluffyjenn1: I think 12 July is better, given other deadlines

    hta: I'll be back for 12 July.

    StefanH: I'll be gone that week.

<hta> matt, I'll be back July 12, not July 5

    StefanH: Let's do a Doodle form.

<scribe> ACTION: Harald to create a Doodle poll for next call
    meeting date. [recorded in

<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Create a Doodle poll for next call
    meeting date. [on Harald Alvestrand - due 2011-06-21].

    hta: Thank you all!

<cullenfluffyjenn1> bye

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Göran to propose a first draft of requirements
    document [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Harald will prepare a call for contributions and make
    sure the WHATWG draft is contributed [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Harald to create a Doodle poll for next call meeting
    date. [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Stefan to find someone to monitor DAP for RTC.
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: StefanH to find someone to monitor DAP for RTC.
    [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 08:31:19 UTC