Hi, Below are my notes from the RTCWEB BoF. Regards, Christer --------------- Collaboration with W3C: -------------------------- - It was noted that while IETF has the network expertise, W3C has the API expertise, and that collaboration between the group is important. - It was indicated, as there are people active in both IETF and W3C, it is better to rely on active collaboration driven by individuals, rather than sending liaisons between the SDOs. - Is was questioned whether IETF and W3C have different IPR policies. - It was indicated that the security model also needs to be defined in collaboration with W3C, as there are web security aspects that IETF might not have good knowledge of. - There was a question whether document produced by IETF and W3C needs to be approved by both SDOs. It was indicated that hopefully there will not be a need for both groups to formally approve documents of the other group, but each SDO should follow and review the work of the other group. - It was commented that we might need to establish a collaboration also with the WHAT WG, rather than relying on W3C for the WHAT WG collaboration. Use-cases and requirements: ----------------------------- Presenter: Christer Holmberg - The presenter indicated that we need to, in order to produce API requirements, agree on the functional split between the browser and the web-app. - The presenter indicated that NAT/FW traversal also contains a mechanism to perform media fallback (e.g. HTTP fallback). RTC-Web Framework: ------------------------- Presenter: Jonathan Rosenberg - The presenter indicated that, as the browser and web-app in most cases are produced by different organizations, we should look at the API between the browser and web-app as a protocol. - It was commented that we need to be careful with terminology, as an API does not dictate a protocol. - It was commented that the API should not be too complex for web application. It was suggested that the API might have different levels of complexity. - It was indicated that the browser application itself might not implement the features it offers to the web-app. Some features might also be offered by the OS, where the broswer simply provides access to those features to the web-app. Web Security: --------------- Presenter: Eric Rescorla - The following security areas, related to rtc-web, were identified: -- Media remote peer verification. -- Access to local device. -- Communication security. - There was a comment that identity also needs to be covered. However, in all use-cases identity might not be needed, or even desired. - It was questioned how we can prevent an application, claiming to be a browser, from sending date before getting consent. It was indicated that such scenario is outside the scope of the WG. Negotiation and Extensibility ---------------------------- Presenter: Cullen Jennings - The presenter indicated that the solution must be extendible, and it must provide a mechanism which allows the negotiation of different features. - It was indicated that full legacy interoperability might not be possible, mostly due to security constraints, without intermediary functions on the media plane. - It was indicated that the WG needs to decide on the level on legacy interoperability. Charter: -------- - A large number of individuals had read the proposed charter text. - There was a question whether document produced by IETF and W3C needs to be approved by both SDOs. It was indicated that hopefully there will not be a need for both groups to formally approve documents of the other group, but each SDO should follow and review the work of the other group. - It was commented that the charter does not talk about legacy interoperability. - It was commented that none of the presentations have described the handling of non-RTP connections. It was indicated that the MG might want to consider sending also non-audio/video data over RTP. - It was commented that the charter should not contain a list of features that might be added to the charter at a later point. Poll: ----- - Willingness to review documents: approx 50-60 individuals. - Willingness to write and provide text to documents: approx 24 individuals.