Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

[Tim Panton <[e-mail]>]

On 6 Nov 2011, at 12:24, Olle E. Johansson wrote:

> 
> 6 nov 2011 kl. 13:05 skrev Tim Panton:
> 
>> 
>> On 5 Nov 2011, at 15:47, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> 
>>> 2011/11/5 Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>:
>>>> Good point. Also, of course (unless you use the SRTP header encryption
>>>> extension) the SRTP header is in the clear, so you mostly just don't get
>>>> the media itself.
>>> 
>>> Hi, please use another thread for discussions about SRTP with no
>>> encryption. This thread was supposed to discuss the purpose and scope
>>> of WebRTC :)
>> 
>> "There are a number of proprietary implementations that provide direct
>> interactive rich communication using audio, video, collaboration,
>> games, etc. between two peers' web-browsers. These are not
>> interoperable, as they require non-standard extensions or plugins to
>> work. There is a desire to standardize the basis for such
>> communication so that interoperable communication can be established
>> between any compatible browsers. The goal is to enable innovation on
>> top of a set of basic components. One core component is to enable
>> real-time media like audio and video, a second is to enable data
>> transfer directly between clients."
>> 
>> Seems like time to rewrite the charter - that doesn't even nearly describe
>> what we have on the table at the moment.
> 
> Tim,
> I have been unable to follow all the mail threads, but your message worries me.
> Can you be a bit more specific on what you see that we have on the mentioned
> table and what worries you?
> 
> Thanks,
> /O

Almost all of the discussions here in the last few weeks are about interop with existing SIP 
deployments. ( forking,glare, SDP, RTP muxing) The bulk of the use-cases on which that effort is
based are also around interop with non-browser devices and channels, but the charter
never mentions legacy interop. It only talks about browser-to-browser and replacing the
myriad plugins. It also talks about being a platform for innovation, which is now a
non-goal for the group.

Iñaki asked a question as to the purpose of WebRTC, so I quoted the charter.
As I re-read it, I found that we have drifted a _long_ way from those stated goals.

On that basis, I say we have to re-evaluate something - either the charter or what we
now have. They are (to my mind) incompatible.

As a concrete example - (there are _many_ but to name a current example) - we seem to be 
on the point of dropping the SRTP requirement in order to ease interop with legacy devices.
How that squares with the charter - or indeed the ITEF's security stance I have no clue.

Personally I'd like the charter re-written to reflect the actual goals of this group. That way
those who disagree can go off an form a group that _does_ reflect this group's original
purpose and focus on the browser to browser innovation case.
If we don't - we are likely to end up with a halfway house that is bad at interop and bad 
for innovation (which is pretty much where we are now).

Tim.


Tim.