Re: [rtcweb] API draft: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00

<sebastien.cubaud@orange.com> Fri, 21 October 2011 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sebastien.cubaud@orange.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F5121F8C77 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e6wpzW7PCS1A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2235F21F8C76 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id AC0F0958005; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:34:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5556958001; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:34:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:24:18 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:24:17 +0200
Message-ID: <E6AA070839B987489960B202AD80E18D01A55B95@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] API draft: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00
Thread-Index: AQHMj9VMGc5R0uafrUWSeROda/L7iZWGp2mQgAAhdZA=
References: <8E91C7B0-CE22-4CDA-8AC2-707EA5DA7716@acmepacket.com>
From: sebastien.cubaud@orange.com
To: HKaplan@acmepacket.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2011 13:24:18.0504 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC8CD480:01CC8FF4]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] API draft: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:24:20 -0000

Hi Hadriel & al,

Thanks for this draft and the effort in having it so quickly released. I share your views in trying to keep the service logic as much as possible within the server. 

Here are below a few comments that hopefully will help:

- Regarding the interoperability issues that can be faced when using SDP O/A model (§3.7), we can probably explicitly mention the ambiguity and the potential vendor's implementations variations when the orders of the same codec are inversed in the offer and in the answer, as well as when payload types vary for the same codec, or when paquetization differs for the same codec, ..     
- Regarding §5.2, I guess the WEB API, in addition to the codec capabilities, MUST also provide a means to learn about the limitations codec use/combinations can put as a constraint to the browser
- Regarding §5.2, it would be suitable to set/get the jitter buffer characteristics (e.g. for QoS perspectives)
- Regarding A2-4, it would be nice to get also the paquetization/bitrate supported by codecs (e.g. to allow an easy reduction of the required bandwidth)
- Regarding A3-7, if you assume SDES could be used, it is probably TBD (just like A3-6). Same remark regarding A3-8, it is then probably TBD
- Regarding 5.3, in addition to the existing requirements, it would be nice to get the RTCP stats (packet loss, jitter, ..) as well as potential RTP notifications (such as when receiving DTMF event or maybe inband codec modification) but it is very linked to the scoped use cases.
- Regarding 5.3, probably TBD, it could be worth getting the RTP/RTCP capabilities: for instance, the supported profiles, if multipath-RTP gets supported, ..
- Regarding A5-10, in addition it would be nice to get the browser's device network attachment capabilities: for instance, whether multiple NIC exists, if multi-path TCP gets supported, ..

These are probably not exhaustive, are made a bit in a hurry and would certainly benefit from double-crossing them with draft-rtcweb-requirements..

Kind regards
Sebastien

-----Message d'origine-----
De : rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Hadriel Kaplan
Envoyé : vendredi 21 octobre 2011 11:39
À : <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Objet : [rtcweb] API draft: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00


Howdy,
we've posted an initial strawman for "API requirements" for "no signaling" as our chairs have asked for for the con call.
I'm still not sure why we need to provide this in an I-D, but given only a few days notice and having other day jobs, we've tried our best in the short timeframe.

Note: given the announced conf call for Friday (today?), I've submitted this version without getting final proof-reading from the other authors.  So some new bits I wrote they may not agree with... in fact some bits I wrote *I* may not agree with, given how late it is at night for me (well I guess early in the morning technically).  Caveat emptor. :)

Link details below.


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : API Requirements for RTCWEB-enabled Browsers
	Author(s)       : Hadriel Kaplan
                         Dan Burnett
                         Neil Stratford
                         Tim Panton
	Filename        : draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2011-10-21

  This document discusses the advantages and disadvantages of several
  proposed approaches to what type of API and architectural model
  RTCWeb Browsers should expose and use.  The document then defines
  the requirements for an API that treats the Browser as a library and
  interface as opposed to a self-contained application agent.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-api-reqs-00.txt

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb