Subject: [rtcweb] Draft agenda RTCWeb call on September 8th

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:09:22 -0600

We need to start working on an agenda for the Sept 8th - bellow is  very rough straw man. Please suggest ideas for things to add, delete, change ...

--------------------

Use Case - John (60 min) 

    Identity in multiuser calls

    Recording 

Terminology Mapping RTP to W3C ( 30 min) 
    - what's a track, session, flow, connection and how do they relate 

Just One Port - (AKA Multiplexing) -  Harald  (30 min)

Non Media Data Transport (30 min) 

Security and User Interface (90 min) 
     What do we expect the see and do in relation to security and authorization around access to microphone/camera

Other things that I don't see as being ready to spend time on ...

NAT

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:45:49 +0200

Given that draft-perkins-rtcweb-rtp-usage-03 is just out, should we 
include that on the agenda?

> We need to start working on an agenda for the Sept 8th - bellow is  very rough straw man. Please suggest ideas for things to add, delete, change ...
could you add a little more text here (in particular as John is a 
multicast address)?
I think I know where "recording" comes from, but what is the "identity" 
point?
>      - what's a track, session, flow, connection and how do they relate
This is a discussion that's been happening on the W3C list, for those of 
you who don't read that.
>       What do we expect the see and do in relation to security and authorization around access to microphone/camera
This has previously been said to be a W3C discussion - and the W3C WG is 
having a meeting on Aug 31.
Don't know if 90 minutes of IETF time is the Right Thing here.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:24:53 +0100

I'm happy to present if people think it's useful, although I'd guess most of the discussion will relate to multiplexing, which isn't in the latest version of my draft.

Colin

On 29 Aug 2011, at 10:45, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Given that draft-perkins-rtcweb-rtp-usage-03 is just out, should we include that on the agenda?
> 
> could you add a little more text here (in particular as John is a multicast address)?
> I think I know where "recording" comes from, but what is the "identity" point?
>> 
> This is a discussion that's been happening on the W3C list, for those of you who don't read that.
>> 
> This has previously been said to be a W3C discussion - and the W3C WG is having a meeting on Aug 31.

-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:02:40 -0700

To clarify a bit further on what we're thinking for next week's
agenda, the chairs are currently thinking of this time split:

1 Hour:  Use case discussion (draft available now)

1 Hour:  Security (draft available end of the week)
--Focus of the discussion will be on what we want to provide as
assurances to different actors.

1 Hour: Signaling
--Focus of the discussion will be semantics & path (e.g Offer/Answer or
alternative?)

1/2 Hour: RTP concepts mapping to WebRTC API objects
--How  flows/streams/sessions map to tracks/connections/tracklists

1/2 Hour: Tentative slot for Congestion Control

Please send any agenda discussion to the as soon as possible, so
folks are prepping for the right things.

thanks,

Ted, Cullen, Magnus

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:00:30 -0700

On 08/30/2011 03:02 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> --Focus of the discussion will be semantics&  path (e.g Offer/Answer or
> alternative?)
>

We can't rely on STD-C library or anything out-of-scope of the stable 
toy-story of the Personal Companion Cube (PCC); that means we want any 
"congestional control" in ABI-only, not API, such that the word 
"control" is kept to the digital comprehension only. No more 
ban-hammer's needed by gTLDs because young scientists think STD-C is the 
only ABI comparison; systems that know the truth of quantum spin simply 
use physical simulation for needs and meta-physical needs. Yes, why 
should physical systems "control" meta-physical maps: earthquake? Proven.

In ray-cast systems, the client end doesn't know if the source is 
analogue or digital when not the original signal. Some read my UUID per 
cast with progressive optimization blogs, there is no API needed for 
this ABI with security assets such as this kind of atomic clock (with or 
without real peripherals). "Start with the solution."

Replication is possible in my books, so I'll pause on this evil.

-- 
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant