Re: [rtcweb] WG Action: Rechartered Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (rtcweb)

Here's an initial set of slides that I put together the other day, still a
few ??? to address:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aprC-TwmLI_zGdWgnTdKVYvaqXNkcf9eMgMhAIzv8Ek/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-8HY7ugai8XnQyH4sA8cQdAcQdA.
Please have a look and feel free to leave comments in the preso.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 1:53 PM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=
40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Roman,
>
>
>
> >You are probably the most qualified to do so. Let me know if you need
> any help regarding the current implementation status or backward interop
> testing.
>
>
>
> I don’t have much information, so feel free to send me whatever you have :)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 1:25 PM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I could present the JSEP/BUNDLE specification misalignment, unless someone
> else wants to.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From:* rtcweb <rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Ted Hardie
> *Sent:* perjantai 19. helmikuuta 2021 20.11
> *To:* RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
> *Cc:* rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] WG Action: Rechartered Real-Time Communication in
> WEB-browsers (rtcweb)
>
>
>
> And we're back.
>
>
>
> This is hopefully for a limited engagement, as the charter is quite
> pointed on what we have to do.
>
>
>
> We do have a meeting slot at IETF 110, Friday March 12, 12:00 UTC (the
> first slot on the final day, in other words). The bulk of the time will be
> spent on the handling of "m=" sections that are designated as bundle-only.
> If you want to present on this, please send a note to the WG as soon as
> possible.  If you have some other agenda item, please let Sean and me know,
> and we'll discuss it with you.
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
>
> Ted and Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 9:42 AM The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> The Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (rtcweb) WG in the Applications
> and Real-Time Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional
> information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
>
> Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (rtcweb)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Current status: Proposed WG
>
> Chairs:
>   Sean Turner <sean+ietf@sn3rd.com>
>   Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
>
> Assigned Area Director:
>   Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
>
> Applications and Real-Time Area Directors:
>   Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
>   Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
>
> Mailing list:
>   Address: rtcweb@ietf.org
>   To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>   Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/
>
> Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/rtcweb/
>
> Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtcweb/
>
> The RTCWEB working group was originally chartered to standardize mechanisms
> that provide direct interactive rich communication using audio, video,
> collaboration, games, etc. between two peers' web-browsers, without
> requiring
> non-standard extensions or proprietary plug-ins.  The result was a set of
> RFCs from RTCWEB, in addition to many other RFCs from other working groups,
> all of which are interrelated and had to be published together in what the
> RFC Editor refers to as a “cluster”.  In the end, that cluster comprised
> more
> than 40 RFCs and was finally published in January 2021.
>
> During the run-up to publication of the cluster, a contradiction was
> identified between what became RFCs 8829 and 8843.  A description of this
> contradiction was added to both documents to highlight the problem, and
> state
> our intention to proceed with publication but quickly initiate an effort to
> publish updates to the affected documents.
>
> The key part of the added text was as follows:
>
> “The specific issue involves the handling of "m=" sections that are
> designated as bundle-only, as discussed in Section 4.1.1 of [RFC 8829].
> Currently, there is divergence between JSEP and BUNDLE, as well as between
> these specifications and existing browser implementations …”
>
> The working group is being reconstituted to take up this contradiction,
> come
> to consensus on a resolution, and issue Standards Track updates for those
> two
> documents.  Specifically, the goal of this work is to address only the
> contradictions regarding "bundle-only" between BUNDLE and JSEP.  The
> resulting aligned solution should avoid impacting the interoperability with
> SDP Offer/Answer.  Finally, the impact on existing implementations that are
> affected by any change is to be considered.
>
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp, which has not yet been published, will be returned
> to
> the working group to be updated according to the resolution of the issue
> described above.  The working group will therefore produce updates to the
> JSEP and BUNDLE documents, and re-submit draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp for
> publication after it has been revised.  Updating any other document, or
> taking up any other issue, is out of scope and will require IESG approval
> via
> rechartering.
>
> Coordination with the MMUSIC working group to develop this solution will be
> required.
>
> Milestones:
>
>   Aug 2021 - Update to draft-ietf-rtcweb-sdp to the IESG as Informational.
>
>   Aug 2021 - Updates to the JSEP and BUNDLE documents to the IESG as
> Proposed
>   Standard.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>