Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I hope others can comment on this also.
>
> Göran Eriksson AP skrev den 2015-05-25 17:10:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have some minor comments concerning the meaning of ³SIP² and ³WebRTC²
>> endpoints.
>>
>> Sorry for the late response and for top-posting but it became a bit messy
>> to add inline:
>>
>> 1. The link to
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview/ did not
>> work?
>>
>
> It works fine for me.
>
>  2. The text uses ³SIP² and ³WebRTC² to describe the different kind of
>> end-points that are in scope.
>>     W3C WebRTC WG recognises the fact that the WebRTC end points can be
>> browser end points
>>     (browser + web (client portion of) web app) or native WebRTC (or
>> rather
>> rtcweb) clients and both are in scope for the W3C WG.
>>     The browser endpoint trust model is different from that of native
>> clients and it is also evolving.
>>     I think that clarity in how different endpoints trust model and
>> security framework look like and different is beneficial for several of
>> the deliverables, notably 2,3 and 5.
>>
>
> The use of WebRTC endpoints where deliberate by my and intended to cover
> not only browsers but anything meeting the WebRTC endpoint definition. So
> the question, does this need to be made more explicit in the charter?

[MB] I think this is fine as is in the charter - certainly it needs to be
clear in the deliverables but that's a detail we can deal with there. [/MB]

>
>
>
>> 3. The charter says it will ³notify² W3C WebRTC about this activity; what
>> do the WG expect to get back and why not Œcoordinate¹? And are there other
>> W3C WG¹s that are relevant?
>>
>
> I think the expectation is that in the end W3C and likely RTCWEB WG agrees
> to integrate the PERC solution into their specifications so that one can
> actually use it with WebRTC. In intermediate step I think it will be a
> question of notifying for example when there exist a proposed blue-print
> for integration. This may be an example of where coordinate might be needed.
>
> I could see that we could change the last sentence in the collaboration
> part from:
> "We will notify AVTCore, CLUE, MMUSIC, RTCWEB, SIPREC, W3C WebRTC, and
> other related groups about this work."
>
> to
> "We will notify, and when needed coordinate with, AVTCore, CLUE, MMUSIC,
> RTCWEB, SIPREC, W3C WebRTC, and other related groups about this work."
>
> Opinions?
>
> [MB] I think the suggested change is fine. [/MB]


>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>