I agree to large parts of the document, and I think that the section on interoperability with existing VoIP gear brings up important aspects. However, I am not completely comfortable with a couple of things: * The application would be responsible for rate adaptation, but what is the incentive for the application developer to do something that is fair to other applications or users? I would prefer that this is part of the browser (and with the auto update feature most browsers use the update cycles could be short anyway) * Are you suggesting that the <video> (and consequently also the <audio>) tag should not be used? I don't think this is a good idea. Since they are accepted and used by the web community we should use them also for RTC-Web rather than trying to invent something new. --Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenberg Sent: den 8 februari 2011 15:49 To: 'DISPATCH list' Subject: [dispatch] RTCWEB I-D with thoughts on the framework
Some of my colleagues from Skype and I have put together a draft which gives our thoughts on the scope of the protocols and functionality for enabling browser RTC. I've just submitted the draft, which you can find here:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-rosenberg-rtcweb-framework-00.txt
Some of the key points:
* keep it minimal * APIs for controlling behaviors of the various media components, with defaults for those that dont care * no SIP or Jingle; leave that to proprietary over websockets/HTTP * no ICE - just STUN. ICE can be a javascript library.
Thanks, Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. SkypeID: jdrosen Skype Chief Technology Strategist jdrosen@skype.net http://www.skype.com jdrosen@jdrosen.net http://www.jdrosen.net
_______________________________________________ dispatch mailing list dispatch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch