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

[Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>]

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."


>
> This is aggressive, but we feel we need to have at least -00s for the 
> different ideas in place in order to make real progress.
>

As I pointed out in my presentation at the interim, standardizing the 
protocol between the web browser and the web server != the protocol 
between the web browser and the javascript running in it. And so even if 
you want SDP on the wire, you don't necessarily need SDP in the API... 
and vice versa.

So in this case, I believe standardizing the protocol on the wire for 
signaling is out of scope. And we're already making good progress on the 
wire protocol for media (and media consent).

Matthew Kaufman