Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 2011-10-05 04:15, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> > On 10/4/2011 9:01 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >> At today's Chairs call, Cullen, Magnus and I had a discussion of how
> >> to make progress on the signaling discussion.  We feel the mailing
> >> list discussion needs to have more concrete proposals in order to make
> >> progress, and so we're putting forward the following:
> >>
> >> 1) If you plan to put forward a draft proposing a concrete solution in
> >> this space, please send your name to the mailing list with that intent
> >> by October 7th *THIS FRIDAY*.
> >
> > I'm going to nominate myself here.
> >
> >>
> >> 2) Please have a -00 draft out for discussion by October 14th (the
> >> following Friday).  This is to allow for a discussion and update prior
> >> to the -01 deadlines.
> >>
> >
> > I believe that defining a signaling protocol between web browsers and
> > web servers for RTCWEB is out of scope, so I believe there is no draft
> > required... unless you really want a -00 draft that says "do nothing".
> >
> > I believe that defining a signaling protocol between web servers and
> > other web servers for RTCWEB federation is out for scope for "version
> > 1", so I believe it is not appropriate to submit a draft at this time...
> > unless you really want a -00 draft that says "do nothing for now, use
> > any of the existing protocols until then."
> >
>
> I think also this proposal do require an Internet draft which discusses
> the requirements put on the API. What of the underlying protocols that
> are this WG task needs to be exposed in different forms?
>
>
I strongly agree with Magnus here.  It's very easy for a statement saying
that a standardized signaling protocol is out of scope to create
presumptions about where data the proprietary signaling protocols use comes
from, what its form is, the level of granularity it has, and how it is
packaged.  We need concrete proposals in order to evaluate whether the
implications of that general statement are acceptable to the working group.

regards,

Ted



> My understanding of your idea is that you have both capabilities and
> knobs that can be set. I also believe it requires some state
> transitioning events. For example to kick of ICE negotiation between the
> peers when the right things has been set.
>
> Thus, I personally do see a need for draft from you that explains the
> details of how things are expected to work. I don't see you needing to
> define how the API should really look, but what the requirements on that
> API are based on your solutions. But without that your proposal is still
> not clear and open for a lot of interpretation.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>