Web Real-Time Communications Teleconference

19 May 2011


See also: IRC log


Harald Alvestrand, Stefan Håkansson, Francois Daoust, Dan Burnett, Christopher Blizzard, Dan Druta, Cullen Jennings, Neil Stratford, Dan York, Göran Eriksson, Jose de Castro, Christophe Eyrignoux, Steve?, Dan Romascanu, Anant Nayaranan, Richard Tibbett


<danyork> Dan York from Voxeo on the phone.

<DanD> I am Dan Druta from AT&T

<danyork> A number of people joined #webrtc over on Freenode... I provided the URL to get over here.

<blizzard> (also on freenode since that has a port I can get to with an irc client)

<blizzard> welcome to the first teleconference

<blizzard> still working out the bugs

<burn_> info on using zakim: http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim

<bitshaq> hi just joining the irc room. been on the call.

[hta reviewing the agenda]

hta: Decision we need to make at this call is basically when next calls will be and whether we want to meet F2F.

<blizzard> hta: none here

hta: According to W3C rules, F2F meetings need to be announced pretty much in advance.
... Comments on the agenda?

[none heard]

Round table introductions

hta: there are some people who are on IRC and some who are not. Let's go for a quick round of introductions.

hta: With so many people, that would take a long time.

<anant> 1 per organization?

<dyork> 1 per company

hta: Let's go for 1 per company. From Google, what I hope is to define APIs that would allow to make audio/video conference calls within Web browsers.

<inserted> [scribe had sound troubles and missed speaker]

cullen: 100% in line with what's already been said.

DanBurnett: I'd like to have Jose to explain Voxeo's position

Jose: We're coming in from the API perspective as well. We don't represent a browser vendor but we've been trying to define this API for some time, so we're really excited to see this work going on.

ChristopheEyrignoux: For France Telecom / Orange. I'd like this API to enable interconnection with SIP-RTC.
... Signaling should allow for format negotiation.

DanDruta: for AT&T, we're actively involved in other works that would like to take advantage of these capabilities on a standard basis.

<dyork> hta: That was me rejoining... I lost audio and had to drop off and rejoin

Goran: From Ericsson, we want this to be interoperable, secure and to include datagrams.

DanRomascanu: from Avaya. Looking for the solution to be browser independent and accomodate various classes of devices via negociation capabilities

hta: I guess we all see the need for interoperable APIs, that's the key word here. How much of the datagram format needs to be exposed is still unclear.
... I think that might be enough for our expectation for now.

Web RTC WG Overview

hta: Looking at the charter, it's all about API functions.

-> Web RTC WG charter

hta: we expect collaboration with the IETF RTCWEB group, Cullen is one of the chairs.

cullen: yes, I recognize many people here, so think things will go smooth.

hta: people expressed that they did not want W3C to define which codecs are mandatory.
... Discussion is still going on in IETF. Will that be smooth? ;)

<blizzard> aaaand I need to vanish

<blizzard> :(

<blizzard> another thing at 1030

hta: There is one proposal definitely in scope for one of our API functions written by Ian Hickson.

hta: The WHATWG has the spec, in scope for our work. It helps a great deal to have only one spec to do one thing.
... We need to work on relationship with WHATWG.

DanBurnett: it is important to clarify the relation with WHATWG as it is a recurring topic at W3C.

<anant> dan: use cases are going to drive everything. clearing up use-cases will make clear what groups to co-ordinate with

Cullen: what are the groups with need to talk precisely for privacy and security aspects?

stefan: Device APIs has done that up until now.

Cullen: I don't understand how groups use to coordinate at W3C, which is why I raise the question.

goran: the list in the charter is a good starting point. I think one good starting point for the group would be to work on use cases.
... to get a feeling of who we need to involve.

hta: there was one use cases document that was presented by IETF.
... Not sure where it makes sense to keep this work. Joint document?

goran: Ericsson's willing to work on it in both forums.

<cullenfluffyjenni> +1 on that viewpoint

hta: Joint documents are generally shared. Keeping it as Internet Draft and asking both sides for review seems like the way to go.

DanBurnett: the IETF is going to operate at the network layer. The W3C at the upper layer, it may be wise to split the document.

goran: you're right, but first use cases would better appear in a common document.
... I would suggest to start with a common one at least for 3 weeks.

hta: yes, let's start with a common one.

goran: I'd like to know examples of use cases at W3C.

hta: that's where the mailing-list should come into action. Goran, could you point people to the latest draft?

goran: yes, volunteers are welcome, by the way.

hta: That also covers our topic on first next steps, and some of "who would be willing to contribute".
... I need to leave very early. Can we jump to next meetings?

Next meetings

hta: A lot of us are going to Quebec end of July for IETF meeting and RTCWEB F2F.
... I would suggest to hold a F2F for the W3C group as well.

cullen: Do you want to have it in parallel with other meetings or at the beginning or the end of meetings?

hta: I was thinking of Friday afternoon.

<dyork> Ha! Indeed, by Friday people are ready to leave an IETF

DanR: If we know now, I can ping the secretariat. My strong preference would be for Sunday.

hta: we might not need too much time because the same discussions will happen at the RTCWEB meeting.
... I think we should announce as soon as we know we can hold it in Sunday

DanB: I would note that participants may not be exactly the same, and you should not assume that discussions and people will be exactly the same.
... Don't shorten the time.

???: fully agree with that

Cullen: what's normal here? 3 hours or 4 hours?

DanB: It very much depends, based on experience, on where we're at.

DanB: everything's not necessarily decided on mailing-lists at W3C. Crossing over lunch break is very nice.
... It could perhaps help to improve mix networking between groups

hta: ok, we have a proposal here.
... Next question is how often should we make phone calls?
... Groups vary in the number of phone calls they have.

DanB: We recently chartered the Audio incubator group, starting with a group who didn't want to have phone calls. Then we went on a call every 2 week basis, to discuss and resolve issues.
... There is an advantage to having a group that meets often on the phone.

hta: 3 weeks from now on 8 June, we have the RTCWeb interim meeting.
... I think we need to talk before or after about where we are here.
... In two weeks from now, but June 2nd is vacation day.
... June 1st or June 6th.

goran: I would suggest 7th (?)

[consensus to create a Doodle around info date]

Cullen: one question about conference bridge.

francois: matter of estimating the maximum number of people for the reservation. I said 15, turns out it was not enough.

stefan: I think we've been through the agenda, so unless there's anything left that people would like to discuss, we could close.
... I note that there is a TPAC meeting in November in Santa Clara and think we should go there.

DanB: deadline for registration is past, do you think we can find a meeting room?

francois: I will investigate. I think that's doable given that the group did not exist when the questionnaire was sent out.

[call adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/05/23 09:29:54 $