Subject: [dispatch] IETF#80: RTCWEB BoF notes

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:30:55 +0200

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.