Subject: [rtcweb] Draft agenda posted

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:48:43 -0700

A draft agenda has been posted at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/agenda/agenda-84-rtcweb

Edits and adjustments still possible; comments to the list.

Ted

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:49:06 -0400

Ted,

I notice a conflict of the second session (which covers security) with 
OAuth. Is it possible to change the schedule?  OAuth seems to be 
applicable to RTCWeb authorization.

It might be impossible to reschedule, but would you consider swapping 
the content of the slots so that security is covered in the first session?

With thanks,

Igor

On 7/18/2012 3:48 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:16:16 +0100

> Edits and adjustments still possible; comments to the list.

Is there anything people want to discuss around rtp-usage that needs agenda time? There are a few open issues noted in the draft, but they almost all depend on the results of other discussions that will happen at the meeting (i.e., the keying and codec discussions). Otherwise, feedback on details would be useful, but that's probably better done of the list.

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

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:31:39 -0700

Hi Igor,

Thanks for pointing out the potential conflict.  The chairs had a
quick discussion of this issue this morning and, unfortunately, we
probably are not going to be able to make this change.  There are
always some conflicts, unfortunately, and we're sorry for any
inconvenience.

regards,

Ted

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Igor Faynberg
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> OAuth. Is it possible to change the schedule?  OAuth seems to be applicable
> to RTCWeb authorization.
>
> It might be impossible to reschedule, but would you consider swapping the
> content of the slots so that security is covered in the first session?
>
> With thanks,
>
> Igor
>
>

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:57:19 -0400

Ted,

Thanks for the consideration and for the effort.  I understand the 
scheduling problem very well (been there, done that...), and I know that 
it can become unmanageable, what with presenters being in other sessions 
or arriving late, or...

Needless to say, If there is any chance that at least some security 
discussions--in which I would very much want to participate,--could take 
place om the first session, I would very much appreciate it!

With thanks, again,

Igor

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:40:48 -0700

> Edits and adjustments still possible; comments to the list.

5 minutes explaining
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rtcweb-api-reqs-00 would go a
long way.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:00:33 -0700

Hi Martin,

The last exchange I saw between you and Magnus about this seemed to
result in agreement that this was primarily about the W3C end of the
spectrum, essentially arguing that it start work on a low-layer API
(unless I miss which bit of our architecture "application" in your
draft is meant to cover).  Did I miss a set of exchanges between you
and Magnus that came to a different conclusion?

regards,

Ted

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:44:39 -0700

> spectrum, essentially arguing that it start work on a low-layer API

That was Magnus' inference, yes.  But not the intent of the draft.
There is no argument for a "low-layer API" in the document, regardless
of what anyone might infer.  This is just an alternative description
of the communication model developed in this working group.

5 minutes to explain would probably go a long way to deal with these concerns.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:49:53 -0700

> of the communication model developed in this working group.
Martin, if there is an alternative description of the communication 
model developed by RTCWeb in the document, I missed it. The description 
(page 2 and 3) seems to me to be totally isomorphic to the current 
-overview document, and most of the document (page 4 to 9) is API 
requirements, which don't describe any model.

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 19:45:15 -0700

On 28 July 2012 10:49, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Martin, if there is an alternative description of the communication model
> developed by RTCWeb in the document, I missed it. The description (page 2
> and 3) seems to me to be totally isomorphic to the current -overview
> document, and most of the document (page 4 to 9) is API requirements, which
> don't describe any model.

Sorry, I should have said that this is our conclusions on the
requirements that arise from this model.