Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Agenda for Interim

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Tue, 08 January 2013 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 5E31621F8AD4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 02:28:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id noRwogoESKXN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 02:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A6921F8ABD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 02:27:58 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7fb26d000006129-61-50ebf4ad5afe
Received: from esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8C.11.24873.DA4FBE05; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:27:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [150.132.141.90] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0184.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:27:57 +0100
Message-ID: <50EBF4AD.2000006@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:27:57 +0100
From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
References: <CABcZeBPU_nDn53N3qBqZQgTdTPSsnCJf9sChdBP=pX_Q17juRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPU_nDn53N3qBqZQgTdTPSsnCJf9sChdBP=pX_Q17juRw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrJJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7aL68DDOZMM7Po/biE0WLtv3Z2 ByaPJUt+MnkcnbefNYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvjYet5poI1ohUzbt9ibGBcJtjFyMkhIWAi 8fX3SyYIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAicZJc7e/M0I4axmlDj9+x4LSBWvgLbE5bk32EFsFgEVieau E2wgNptAoMT1/7/AJokKhEhc//6IEaJeUOLkzCdgvSICThJnbpwEiwsLGEpMOrQBLC4kECBx 8vNrsDmcQHOubvwONp9ZwFbiwpzrLBC2vMT2t3OYIep1Jd69vsc6gVFgFpIVs5C0zELSsoCR eRUje25iZk56udEmRmDwHdzyW3UH451zIocYpTlYlMR5w10vBAgJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleak Fh9iZOLglGpg5HB6kZ347Gb08W2fVp13kd6/842D0L8lBmvf883423IjJLtgvZHnrnUCm1/u Yoz7wBby+svSq4vnBiwx95m9Kdpnh12b/+PrBQX/m1/ZfhFz/bpAZv6vqM7f756HG7a0i1wI OMK9JfbNE97MMyzCL7rcq7WOnBL1OG8d+bLQuqB6G2O7xPf2OUosxRmJhlrMRcWJACRRWwYM AgAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Agenda for Interim
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: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:28:00 -0000

(Sorry for cross-posting).

On 2013-01-02 16:12, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Chairs,
>
> I've spent some time thinking about the agenda for the interim, and
> thought it might be helpful if I sent you a strawman based on the
> items that are blocking progress in terms of implementation and
> interoperability.
>
> Note:
> I am assuming 4 hours each day. The times have been selected with
> the objective of giving us enough time to really resolve the
> open issues. Honestly, we might even add more time for
> the issues on day 1.
>
> Hope this is helpful.

One thing that I think we should discuss when there are protocol _and_ 
API people in the same room is call flows. We touched on it in the Lyon 
W3C meeting, but it was apparent that not everyone had the same view.

Perhaps this could be folded into the "accept/reject" discussion 
proposed in [1].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Jan/0000.html


>
> Day 1
> 2:00    Bundle   [Holmberg]
> Objective: select an approach and work out enough
> details that the editors can work to produce a
> suitable draft.
>
> Drafts:
> - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation
> - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-one-rtp
> - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-mmt-negotiation
>
>
> 2:00    Multiple flow SDP representation [Jennings, Alvestrand]
> Objective: decide on an architecture for large numbers
> of similar streams (e.g., multiple video streams).
>
> Drafts:
> - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-msid
> - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-alvestrand-mmusic-msid
> - Do we have a "master" document for the single m-line case?
> - Multiple m-lines doesn't have a document
>
>
> Day 2
> 1:30    Mapping stream/track label concepts SDP identifiers [Alvestrand]
> Objective: determine requirements
> 1:30    Trickle ICE open issues [Ivov(?), Uberti, Rescorla]
> - Starting checks
> - Termination conditions
> - Error handling
> Drafts:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-trickle
>
> 1:00    SDP for Datachannels open issues [Jesup, Loreto]
> Objective: resolve open issues (post WGLC?)
>
> Drafts:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-02
>
> Day 3
> 1:00    Other recommended audio codecs [Roach]
> Objective: identify what other audio codecs we intend to
> recommend.
>
> 1:00    Process WGLC comments on documents [authors]
>
> 0:30    Other business
>
> 0:30    Wrapup/next steps [Chairs]
>
>
> Best,
> -Ekr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>