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

A number of us talked about the fact that we needed more discussion on real-time communication *on the web* i.e. what the particular challenges of implementing this in a browser or integrated into the web, are. We sadly all know how hard the problem is in general; there are plenty of groups working on SIP, IMS, and the like, that we don't need to duplicate. On Oct 18, 2010, at 15:49 , Bernard Aboba wrote:

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 _______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list RTC-Web@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web

David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

On 10/19/10 00:49, Bernard Aboba wrote:

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. I think this is on the list of things that have to be worked out, I don't think the workshop went into enough details to give an answer here.

The ICE-lite of RFC 5245 appendix A seems to be "appropriate only for devices that will *always* be connected to the public Internet and have a public IP address at which it can receive packets from any correspondent" - this doesn't seem to be appropriate for a browser, so what's embedded in the browser is certainly not going to be ICE-lite. What do you mean when you say "ICE with HTTP/HTTPS failover"?

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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

_______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list RTC-Web@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web