In terms of items for further work, I believe we talked about a STUN API in Javascript, as well as the need for integration between STUN/ICE and Websockets. With respect to ICE, there was some discussion about whether we were talking about ICE, ICE-lite, or ICE with HTTP/HTTPS failover. While settling on the precise ICE functionality might not create an interoperability problem between browser A and browser B if both were connecting to the same service, if they were connecting to different services there is the potential for clients ending up with incompatible ICE Javascript libraries. From: hta@google.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:12:58 +0200 To: stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com CC: rtc-web@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: [RTW] Workshop report, version one Good point! paragraph added. On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 16:53, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: Harald, thanks for the report. I find it accurate and well balanced, but I miss one piece: There was an agreement that codec (media format) negotiation should be supported so that codecs supported by the device (maybe being HW accelerated) can be used (if both endpoints support these codecs). Maybe it should go into the codec section (or "other pieces"). Stefan ________________________________ From: rtc-web-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:rtc-web-bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand Sent: den 18 oktober 2010 16:03 To: rtc-web@alvestrand.no Subject: [RTW] Workshop report, version one Enclosed (in PDF) is the first version of the RTC-Web workshop report. Comments to the list, please! Harald _______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list RTC-Web@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web