[rtcweb] WebRTC compatible endpoints (WAS: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)

[Sergio Garcia Murillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gaelle

It is vague on purpose. What WebRTC does in regards of "WebRTC 
compatible endpoints" is just describing a reality, there will be some 
entities that do not comply with the WebRTC specs, but still are able to 
speak with WebRTC devices/browsers/endpoints/gateways because they 
implement a set of specs that WebRTC is built upon.

So you can either ignore them, or assume that they are in the wild 
outside and describe how they look like and how they could interact with 
WebRTC. And, by definition, you can't put any kind of requirement to 
entities that do comply with the spec.

Best regards
Sergio

On 10/12/2014 15:47, Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote:
>
> +1
>
> The vagueness of the WebRTC-compatible endpoint definition and the 
> feature set it covers is worrisome.
>
> It is introducing sub-standards within a specification.
>
> The various discussions show that we have been essentially looking at 
> it either as containing  all features but one codec, or the feature 
> set needed for a gateway. That category could covers something that 
> does only does 15% of WebRTC. It might "successfully communicate with 
> a WebRTC endpoint" but what does it means?
>
> How painful will that be to deal with such endpoint, assuming it 
> somewhat connects to your own product?
>
> It might be more appropriate to relax requirements for both the WebRTC 
> gateway and a new entity than having such a vague category.
>
> Gaëlle
>
> *From:*rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Eric 
> Rescorla
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:18 AM
> *To:* Bernard Aboba
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Bernard Aboba 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> My bad.
>
> New question:  How can an endpoint that implements video but none of 
> the MTI codecs be construed as "WebRTC Compatible"?
>
> Well, this seems like a generic complaint about the term "compatible", 
> since such
>
> endpoints are explicitly not required to meet any requirements:
>
>        A WebRTC-compatible endpoint is an endpoint that is able to
>        successfully communicate with a WebRTC endpoint, but may fail to
>        meet some requirements of a WebRTC endpoint.  This may limit where
>        in the network such an endpoint can be attached, or may limit the
>        security guarantees that it offers to others.  It is not
>        constrained by this specification; when it is mentioned at all, it
>        is to note the implications on WebRTC-compatible endpoints of the
>        requirements placed on WebRTC endpoints.
>   
> So, perhaps we need a new term, but this doesn't seem like an issue limited to
> video codecs
>   
> -Ekr
>   
>
>     On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Bernard Aboba
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Allowing an endpoint that implements video to call itself "WebRTC
>     compliant" without implementing either of the MTI codecs is so
>     wrong-headed that I am at a loss for words.
>
>     I believe you have misread the proposal. The term "WebRTC
>     compliant" never appears
>
>     anywhere in
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03. Indeed,
>     the word
>
>     "compliant" does not appear.
>
>     Rather, endpoints which implement neither codec qualify as "WebRTC
>     Compatible".
>
>     -Ekr
>
>         On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Erik Lagerway
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Thanks Sean,
>
>         We can not support this draft at this time.
>
>         As RTC SDK vendors we very likely will support both codecs,
>         but we can not stand by a decision that will "impose" dual MTI
>         on our developer community.
>
>         According to this, every dev must use both codecs for every
>         app that is built using our tools. Codec selection should be
>         their choice and not be forced upon them. This seems to be a
>         rather unreasonable expectation.
>
>
>         Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | Hookflash
>         <http://hookflash.com/> | 1 (855)**Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
>         <http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog
>         <http://webrtc.is/>
>
>         On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             All,
>
>             At the 2nd RTCweb WG session @ IETF 91, we had a lively
>             discussion about codecs, which I dubbed "the great codec
>             compromise." The compromise text that was discussed
>             appears in slides 12-14 at [4] (which is a slight
>             editorial variation of the text proposed at [2]).
>
>             This message serves to confirm the sense of the room.
>
>             In the room, I heard the following objections and
>             responses (and I'm paraphrasing here), which I'll take the
>             liberty of categorizing as IPR, Time, and Trigger:
>
>             1) IPR:
>
>             Objections: There are still IPR concerns which may
>             restrict what a particular organization feels comfortable
>             with including in their browser implementations.
>
>             Response:  IPR concerns on this topic are well known. 
>             There is even a draft summarizing the current IPR status
>             for VP8: draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation. The sense of
>             the room was still that adopting the compromise text was
>             appropriate.
>
>             2) Time:
>
>             2.1) Time to consider decision:
>
>             Objection: The decision to consider the compromise
>             proposal at this meeting was provided on short notice and
>             did not provide some the opportunity to attend in person.
>
>             Response:  Six months ago the chairs made it clear
>             discussion would be revisited @ IETF 91 [0]. The first
>             agenda proposal for the WG included this topic [1], and
>             the topic was never removed by the chairs. More
>             importantly, all decisions are confirmed on list; in
>             person attendance is not required to be part of the process.
>
>             2.2) Time to consider text:
>
>             Objection: The proposed text [2] is too new to be considered.
>
>             Response: The requirement for browsers to support both VP8
>             and H.264 was among the options in the straw poll
>             conducted more than six months ago.  All decisions are
>             confirmed on list so there will be ample time to discuss
>             the proposal.
>
>             3) Trigger:
>
>             Objection: The "trigger" sentence [3] is all kinds of
>             wrong because it's promising that the future IETF will
>             update this specification.
>
>             Response: Like any IETF proposal, an RFC that documents
>             the current proposal can be changed through the consensus
>             process at any other time.
>
>
>             After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the
>             hums, and typing the hum questions on the screen, there
>             was rough consensus in the room to add (aka "shove") the
>             proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video. In keeping
>             with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on
>             the list.
>
>             If anyone has any other issues that they would like to
>             raise please do by December 19th.
>
>             Cheers,
>             spt (as chair)
>
>             [0]
>             http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11194.html
>             [1]
>             http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13150.html
>             [2]
>             http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html
>             [3] The one that begins with "If compelling evidence ..."
>             [4]
>             http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-rtcweb-7.pdf
>             _______________________________________________
>