W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > June 2018

Re: RTT implementation

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:59:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEEmoD4iq4VzG2pY0Aq1CQeskXoyBKo5XFr+DKaQv7bQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
Cc: Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
The ICE RTT can be useful.  And the RTT coming from the congestion control
context is useful.  So I think we may want to keep in mind exposing those.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018, 8:46 AM Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> In practice, the requirement for "synchronized data" can be supported by
> allowing applications to fill in the payload format defined in RFC 4103.
>
> This enables RTT to be implemented in Javascript on top of an "RTP data
> channel" transport, utilizing the existing RTCDataChannel interface.
>
> So in practice the need for RTT support can be included in a "synchronized
> data" requirement, if properly implemented.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Peter Thatcher [pthatcher@google.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 10:49 PM
> To: Gunnar Hellström
> Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WebRTC NV Use Cases
>
> Thanks, I added that as a new requirement to the conferencing use case.
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:18 PM Gunnar Hellström <
> gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se<mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>> wrote:
> I suggest to include real-time text (= text transmitted in the same rate
> as it is created so that it can be used for real conversational
> purposes) in the NV work.
>
> It is not included in RFC 7478, but included a U-C 5 in section 3.2 of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13&data=02%7C01%7CBernard.Aboba%40microsoft.com%7C4ecd480c191a456ac73d08d5d5a89c6f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636649842519679581&sdata=fEZV7O6vIb1m3bi6mIBmi%2Bbf6PeJCtKx3Jb3WeFjWbA%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
> It could possibly be done by continuing the work started in
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schwarz-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel/
> <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-schwarz-mmusic-t140-usage-data-channel%2F&data=02%7C01%7CBernard.Aboba%40microsoft.com%7C4ecd480c191a456ac73d08d5d5a89c6f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636649842519689589&sdata=KXNSeVQPxSLMa0%2FmzSQRio1W2p7Wgmn2oet%2FAoJTHjA%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> Use cases are e.g.
>
> 1. conversational two-party sessions with video, audio and real-time text.
>
> 2. conversational multi-party sessions with video, audio and real-time
> text.
>
> 3. sessions with automatic speech - to - real-time text conversion in
> one or both directions.
>
> 4. interworking WebRTC with audio, video and real-time text and legacy
> SIP with audio, video and real-time text.
>
> /Gunnar
>
>
> Den 2018-05-09 kl. 21:29, skrev Bernard Aboba:
> > On June 19-20 the WebRTC WG will be holding a face-to-face meeting in
> Stockholm, which will focus largely on WebRTC NV.
> >
> > Early on in the discussion, we would like to have a discussion of the
> use cases that WebRTC NV will address.
> >
> > Since the IETF has already published RFC 7478, we are largely interested
> in use cases that are either beyond those articulated in RFC 7478, or use
> cases in the document that somehow can be done better with WebRTC NV than
> they could with WebRTC 1.0.
> >
> > As with any successful effort, we are looking for volunteers to develop
> a presentation for the F2F, and perhaps even a document.
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2018 07:00:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:42 UTC