W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2011

[Minutes] WebRTC teleconference call 2011-10-05

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:52:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4E8DDCD5.5030508@w3.org>
To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Hi all,

The minutes of yesterday's WebRTC call are available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-webrtc-minutes.html

... and copied as raw text below.

I may have missed a couple of people present at the call. Let me know if you're not on the present list and should be.

Thanks,
Francois.


-----
Web Real Time Communications Working Group

05 Oct 2011

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Sep/0099.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-webrtc-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Harald_Alvestrand, Adam_Bergkvist, Dan_Burnett,
           Francois_Daoust, Dan_Druta, Christophe_Eyrignoux,
           Ralph_Giles, Stefan_Håkansson, Cullen_Jennings,
           Randell_Jesup, Mani_Mahalingam, Tim_Panton, Dan_Romascanu,
           Neil_Stratford, Tim_Terriberry, Rich_Tibbett, Justin_Uberti

    Regrets
    Chair
           Harald

    Scribe
           Ralph_Giles

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Changes made to the editors draft
          2. [6]MediaStream inheritance
          3. [7]Data channel API
          4. [8]Glare resolution
          5. [9]Changes to getUserMedia
          6. [10]Plans for moving to FPWD by Oct 18
          7. [11]Plans to move to FPWD
          8. [12]low level api
          9. [13]Liaison with other WG
      * [14]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    Harald: Agenda sent out on the 27th
    ... reviewing items

    since then, we've added low-level javascript api proposal

Changes made to the editors draft

    cullen: Overview of the changes to the draft
    ... primary set of changes was around separating the ICE state
    machine a bit
    ... Want feedback on the overall model
    ... ICE state machine checks candidates, and can start using some
    while still waiting for other candidates at the same time you have
    have the negotiation with the other endpoint going on
    ... codecs, ICE parameters, etc
    ... separated those two aparet
    ... and tried to update the text and semantics around when things
    change state

    Cullen: second change:
    ... want to redo how we do the data channel and the data api
    ... commented out what was in the previous draft
    ... since it didn't have agreement
    ... will replace it based on discussion today and on the list going
    forward
    ... those are the major changes

MediaStream inheritance

    Adam: had a discussion on the mailing list about confusing text
    ... about how you can create a stream from another stream, and if
    you disable tracks in the parent they affect the derived streams
    ... the usecase was to clone streams e.g. to send a copy of a stream
    somehwere else
    ... but you might want different attributes, e.g. to mute the copy
    you're uploading
    ... so when you fork a stream, it's better if you create a new
    stream which is a peer of the original, without any parent/child
    relationship
    ... this is easier to understand
    ... that was teh first step
    ... the second was to be able to create a new stream that contained
    components gathered from multiple other streams
    ... e.g. to combine all the audio tracks from multiple incoming
    streams and record a single file with all the conversation audio
    ... has implications wrt sync, but we'll take that as a separate
    discussion

Data channel API

    harald: next item, assuming people are ok with non-inherentance
    ... shall we talk about the data channel api for a moment
    ... the main thing going on is the deletion of that part of the spec
    ... but the part that has been happening is that eric (sp?)
    ... has suggested how you could define a protocol for this
    ... and multiplex multiple streams over the channel
    ... most of this is happening at the IETF, but what implication does
    this have for the API

    justin: there is a need to have multiple channels
    ... so it's nice not to do that at the application level
    ... and also signal reliable vs unreliable

    cullen: can we just have a data channel, which you add like an audio
    or video stream
    ... regardless of whether it's reliable or not, I care about
    realtime/low-latency data transmission
    ... that's the important distinction
    ... of course if the library does that form me, that's great
    ... but can always build something

    justin: agree

    randell: also agree

    someone else: requirements address low latency, reliability

    harald: requirements are strict on congestion control
    ... that means we have to throw data away
    ... so a tradeoff we have to be aware of is that reliable will be
    slow

    tim terriberry: we can't assume the endpoint supports data
    ... so adding a data stream needs to be able to fail, we should
    reuse the a/v stream api for that

    someone else: you don't even know if the other side supports data
    right now

    harald: in the absence of a draft
    ... the group is drifting to having a data channel you can add just
    like a media stream

    justin: yes, the other side has a data stream show up just like a/v
    ... and you can have multiple such data streams with different
    properties

    <fluffy> +1 what Justin said

    question: thoughts on peer streams vs peer tracks

    cullen: just make them exactly like a mediastream as much as
    possible
    ... one issue is that tracks are SSRC identified, and demuxed that
    way
    ... while the data stream my have internal muxing
    ... the lowest unit of a/v transmission is the track, which is an
    assymmetry

    question: how do you create data streams?

    it's strange if the peerconnection is the factory?

    harald: could have an .addData() method
    ... right now we don't have a method of having tracks in a media
    stream
    ... so we don't have a symmetric operation of creating data tracks
    ... right now getUserMedia just make a stream appear
    ... and we can add streams to that
    ... it would be something similar to it
    ... getUserMedia must be async
    ... but getDataStream could be sync

    Harald: people have argued, we should just have what's effectively
    capture keyboard and have that be a stream

    Next agenda point.

Glare resolution

    Cullen: Basic issue is that if we're using browsers with SDP to
    negotiate
    ... ignore SIP, etc. for now
    ... if we're using offer/answer
    ... and if you and the other side both send offers at the same time
    (glare)
    ... SDP doesn't have a way to resolve that
    ... both sides need to retry
    ... the way I characterized glare in sip on the IETF thread was sort
    of wrong but the issue is if we're using SDP we need to handle glare
    ... if we want to be able to gateway to sip we need to handle it in
    a way that's compatible with sip's handling and the way sip does it
    isn't necessarily optimal
    ... one question here is, will the sip approach change?
    ... will we invent a backwards-compatibile glare resolution which
    can be used for any SDP protocol
    ... the other question is if we want to be able to gateway to SIP
    wrt to glare handling
    ... either way we have to deal with glare somewhere.
    ... So, that sets the stage for discussion

    Tim Terriberry: what API implications are there?
    ... your glare resolution had a magic number, do we need to expose
    that?

    cullen: I don't think that has api implications
    ... the only implication is that things might take longer than you
    think
    ... adding a stream will always be async because there's some back
    and forth there

    someone else: if you throw these SDP messages away
    ... if you find a glare, it would be better to reuse the message
    ... just a thought

    cullen: I think that would be an attempt to resolve this in in a
    better way
    ... one side backs down, and that would be a faster way to do that
    but I don't think it affects the api
    ... I expect to see some drafts or other evolution of the email
    threads about how we can do glare resolution better, how we can map
    it.
    ... it's not as bad as I originally made it sound

    harald: no specific comments?

    one question for cullen: if we go with this number thing to do
    faster resolution, would that still work with sip?

    cullen: yes. this problem exists in sip as well, so anyone using SDP
    offer/answer would move to this
    ... it would have to be an mmusic draft in the IETF
    ... if you didn't have the number, you'd fall back to something
    which was compatible with the way older sip devices did it
    ... but if you had the number it would resolve the glare faster
    ... maybe even if only one side uses the new resolution it might go
    faster
    ... This matters because there's a common metaphor of people
    starting with voice, and adding video. That escalation is a really
    common case when you have glare

    I wonder if this is premature optimization

    jesup: I wonder if we lock ourselves in to glare when we're
    switching modes, or if there's been an interface changes which
    affects bandwidth

    cullen: good questions
    ... interfaces changes tend to be one sided, so they don't result in
    glare
    ... changes to network are more of a problem
    ... e.g. congestion causes them to drop video
    ... we need to design algorithms so both sides don't try to do that
    at the same time
    ... cisco telepresense is designed so the two ends aren't likely to
    switch within a few 100 ms
    ... that's by design, but so far it hasn't been a issue

    Harald: Cullen will work more on the glare problem

Changes to getUserMedia

    Harald: we have implementation feedback
    ... js argument to getUserMedia
    ... tim's note on json hints for mediastreams
    ... seems to me these are all reasonable things to do
    ... modulo suggested modifications
    ... want to keep getusermedia async
    ... any other comments?

    jesup: As far as the async nature of getUserMedia, it's still async
    in anant's proposal
    ... but it's async in a different way
    ... you get a stream right away but it's inactive until you get an
    event

    tommy and anant were talking about and forth about what the most
    appropriate design is

    Harald: Tommy and Anant will work out a proposal

    Adam: I also got into that discussion
    ... So I think that will continue on the mailing list
    ... xit's a good discussion

    Harald: the proposal will actually change the interface to the
    mediastreamevent and will require that you have a listener on that
    ... before it was possible to use MediaStreams without using an
    event listener

    Adam: Right, you'll have a stream in a state where you can't use it
    ... if we make the track list immutable it will help us in the
    future
    ... It will make it a lot easier

    Harald: you might not get away with that
    ... in the case of remote streams, you'll have tracks popping up
    which weren't there before

    Adam: right now you have all the tracks, but they're empty

    Harald: how is that communicated?

    Adam: with addStream signalling

    harald: but what you're connecting to doesn't use addStream, they
    just appear
    ... Need some kind of gateway to make them look like a
    peerconnection

    Harald: The change to getUserMedia is non-controversial
    ... but the change to MediaStream is controversial

    Tim: I think the issue harald is describing is that if we want to
    make the mediastream a representation of an RTP CNAME, we have to
    account for the possibility that a new track is added

    Cullen: I don't think we have a very good definition of a track
    ... Can't have everything in a peerconnection be synchronized

    jesup: can't have that; they might come from different sources
    ... the feeds could be coming from five different devices

    Cullen: if you have a gateway
    ... it may want to tell you that the five streams aren't
    synchronized

    jesup: those streams are inherently unsynchronized

    cullen: trying to synchronize them introduces latency and delays
    them all if one loses a packet

    someone else: application asks for video and audio at the same time
    with getUserMedia, so it can add video later if it wants to

    jesup: User may have accepted audio only, so escalating to video
    requires asking the user again so you can't assume you don't have to
    call getuserMedia again.

    Harald: we're running out of time, can someone take an action item
    to write down what the media stream is and write to the list

    Tim Terriberry: I can do that

    Harald: Ok, you got it then

Plans for moving to FPWD by Oct 18

    francois: It's a good signal to the rest of the community
    ... to other groups that we're making progress
    ... it doesn't have to be complete
    ... it's a good idea to flag sections which we're still discussion
    ... apart from that the only thing missing is an abstract

    <scribe> ACTION: editors to add an abstract before the next draft
    [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-webrtc-minutes.html#action01]

    francois: we need a resolution that the group agrees to publish a
    draft

    Dan Burnett: can do that on the list

    francois: yes, it just has to be recorded somewhere and archived.

    Harald: I think it's a good idea

    [No objection heard]

    Harald: I'll send a note to the list

    Inserted agenda point (3 minutes left)

    Are some people ok to stay late

    (some people are)

Low level API

    Neil: based on our experince with phono, we'd like to see the bare
    minimum in the browser and do the rest of sdp in javascript

    Cullen: I think the only thing it would take to convince me this was
    a good thing
    ... is a clear idea that this was mapping to an existing signaling
    only gateway
    ... my concerns would be the complexity of the js and getting that
    right
    ... if it were just audio, I'd be for that but the complexity of the
    parameters with video are complicated
    ... e.g. the number of macroblock per second the decoder can process
    ... there are a bunch of different variables you have to negotiate
    and many codec-specific constraints
    ... where's the best place to do that negotiation, browser, or
    javascript?
    ... next year, if a better video codec comes out
    ... I want websites written in a basic way to be able to take
    advantage of that

    jesup: since the parameters are codec-specific
    ... some of them map to each other
    ... but when a new codec comes out, there's not prebuilt mapping js
    can use

    cullen: the last time I looked at this, this was the part which was
    hard and I think that's what we need to look at to figure out what
    to do

    jesup: there's no guarantee websites will upgrade

    cullen: e.g. most prevelent jquery is the first one that really
    worked
    ... so many people pick a version and never upgrade

    Neil: so we need to prove we have no data in the javascript?

    Cullen: we need to talk about the tradeoffs
    ... let's look at a new video codec, because that's the most
    complicated case

    justin: I'd like to look at RTP, encryption
    ... I like the flexibility this approach provides
    ... but I'm concerned it makes it impossible for anyone but experts
    to do this
    ... and if it *is* done in the browser, experts can improve the
    chances of iteroperate
    ... My concern is specifically that at the API if we have an opaque
    blob generated by the browser
    ... we'll have a better chance of interoperability than if that blob
    is generated by a web application because there are fewer things to
    test

    Neil: We could just test/certify the js libraries
    ... do browsers support downloadable or 3rd party codecs? that
    raises the same issue

    Tim: Safari sort of does, in a limited way, but that's the only one

    jesup: this has been considered out of scope

    Cullen: downloading a codec wouldn't be enough, you'd need to also
    download the negotiation logic for the codec

    Harald: With the addition of downloaded codecs, we have *three*
    moving pieces that need to know about each other

    Tim: Regardless of the intents of this group to make an api for
    experts only
    ... people will use it
    ... we've seen with video codecs
    ... that users love starship consoles
    ... and if you give them knobs to tweak they will tweak them
    ... regardless of whether it's a good idea or not

    Neil: but giving the flexibility to those who want them is a good
    idea, surely?

    Cullen: I like that js can do absolutely anything, but I also want
    things to be as simple as possible

    Justin: can't do both easy and expert interfaces in the same API

    jesup: I don't have a problem with a layered api to do that

    cullen: if you think the javasscript can't do it with the sdp, I
    think that's why we say "offer answer"
    ... I think it would be hard to find something you couldn't do by
    modifying the SDP

    Tim Panton: We think it's safer to manipulate the SDP than to have
    an actual API?

    Cullen: well, they'd use a library

    jesup: Anything that exposes the encryption keys to js means your
    media isn't secure
    ... SRTP-DES is a problem because of this

    Harald: this is covered by the security draft
    ... To close up the discussion, we don't have consensus for one or
    the other here
    ... It occurs to me...
    ... Can I ask Neil and Cullen to take the action item to figure out
    this issue?

    justin: The other thing I'd like to understand is

    <francois> [scribe dropped of the call, some exchanges missed]

    Cullen: glad to work with people on this. Doable to do an API on
    this. It's a trade-off to reach. Complicated cases would need to be
    mapped to SDP.
    ... You're re-inventing an alternative to SDP here, make no mistake.
    ... Watched this several times, and it's not a good path to follow.

    DanBurnett: is it reinventing SDP or allowing Web developers who may
    or may not be experts in codec negotiation to develop alternatives?

    Cullen: I can't tell how it's different, but I think you're right.

    Tim Panton: In general, the difference is in the intelligence of the
    client.

    Harald: let's take the discussion to the list, Neil and Cullen to
    drive the discussion.

Liaison with other WG

    Stefan: I just want to inform the group of the of the IETF audio
    working group
    ... there was another proposal which was Mozilla proprietary
    extension to Media streams which could solve this
    ... and I think there wasn't good progress on this
    ... we are hoping to have a joint session with the audio working
    group
    ... to discuss this further, any questions?

    Tim: That sounds like an accurate summary

    [Remember to register for TPAC:
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2011/ Deadline 14
    October]

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2011/

    Cullen: wrt TPAC, I think the other meetings are relatively open
    ... should I plan of sticking around for those?

    DanBurnett: depends on what you want to attend

    Cullen: Is there anything you'd recommend, Dan?

    DanBurnett: the plenary on wednesday is a good way to find out what
    the hot topics are
    ... We're doing potentially the html speech working group on
    Thursday
    ... and ultimately there might be a need to mix Interactive Voice
    Response applications with this group>

    [On Thursday/Friday: HTML WG, DAP, HTML Speech XG are meeting]

    Stefan: Next liason point with DAP

    Rich Device apis
    ... Media Capture api: no work for a year
    ... hope at TPAC we'll prune this and hand over to WebRTC for
    getUserMedia
    ... still got HTML Media Capture but that's not about getting
    objects but prerecorded audio video
    ... also web intents, discovery which may be of interest
    ... meeting Thursday and Friday
    ... if there's stuff from webrtc which might find a home in dap,
    we'd welcome that

    Harald: we're at the end of the agenda
    ... only 1.5 hours
    ... any other business?

    Francois: anyone planning to attend remotely? need to schedule if we
    need a polycom

    Justin: I'm hoping to attend in person
    ... but if now, I'd like to call in

    Dan Burnett: I find it very difficult to have remote participants in
    f2f meetings
    ... It's ok to have in the room, but I don't think we should assume
    that's a good option for participants

    jesup: what worked at the last IETF meeting was having someone take
    comments from IRC and speak them at the mic
    ... which helps a lot with those issues

    Francois: If you think you'll attend remotely, let me know by next
    Wednesday

    Harald: Let's close the meeting
    ... Thanks all!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: editors to add an abstract before the next draft
    [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-webrtc-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2011 16:53:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:25 UTC