See also: IRC log
<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]
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.
hta: Looking at the charter, it's all about API functions.
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?
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]