[Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 01 October 2019 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D8F12003E for <rum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xu49muS2ZyyG for <rum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (outgoing-alum.mit.edu [18.7.68.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B43CE120018 for <rum@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Kokiri.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.62.227.142]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x91JFAtF024215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rum@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:15:11 -0400
References: <a3d82911-8d07-16a3-780b-0592e48e37bd@alum.mit.edu>
To: "rum@ietf.org" <rum@ietf.org>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <a3d82911-8d07-16a3-780b-0592e48e37bd@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <ab68a7fb-7196-4374-7cd4-baf9a03cf6ff@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:15:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a3d82911-8d07-16a3-780b-0592e48e37bd@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/AcrqyijIr9gBEFKnTY0Ygo-S9sU>
Subject: [Rum] Distinguishing RUE and Provider requirements
X-BeenThere: rum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Relay User Machine <rum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rum>, <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rum/>
List-Post: <mailto:rum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum>, <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 19:15:15 -0000

In the discussion thread that followed the attached message it started 
to become apparent that there is a need to distinguish the requirements, 
and/or requirement strength, that apply to the RUE itself from those 
that apply when a RUE connects to a VRS Provider.

Now that we have a wg draft to work from, I would like to see people 
step forward and make proposal(s) for what those differences should be.

While the prior discussion focused on codecs, please also consider what 
else might need to differ.

	Thanks,
	Paul

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01
Resent-From: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:20:51 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>;
To: rum@ietf.org

draft-rosen-rue-01 changes the video codec requirements. It now simply 
references webrtc RFC7742.

RFC7742 distinguishes three types of endpoints: "WebRTC browser", 
"WebRTC non-browser", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". AFAIK it assumes 
that each end is one of these.

Is the expectation here that both the RUE and the provider comply with 
one of these? In particular, that the provider may simply be a 
"WebRTC-compatible endpoint? Notably:

    "WebRTC-compatible endpoints" are free to implement any video codecs
    they see fit.  This follows logically from the definition of "WebRTC-
    compatible endpoint".  It is, of course, advisable to implement at
    least one of the video codecs that is mandated for WebRTC browsers,
    and implementors are encouraged to do so.

Similarly, the audio requirements have been changed to reference webrtc 
RFC7874. That one doesn't have the distinction between "WebRTC browser", 
"WebRTC non-browser", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". It applies the 
same requirements to all. In particular, it requires OPUS support. I 
don't know why it doesn't make the same endpoint distinctions as for video.

I think simply referencing these documents isn't sufficient. Seems like 
we need a more nuanced specification of what is required, though we may 
still reference these docs with qualifications.

	Thanks,
	Paul

-- 
Rum mailing list
Rum@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum