draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02.txt   draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-03.txt 
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Google Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track September 28, 2011 Intended status: Standards Track March 12, 2012
Expires: March 31, 2012 Expires: September 13, 2012
Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-based Applications Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-based Applications
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-03
Abstract Abstract
This document gives an overview and context of a protocol suite This document gives an overview and context of a protocol suite
intended for use with real-time applications that can be deployed in intended for use with real-time applications that can be deployed in
browsers - "real time communication on the Web". browsers - "real time communication on the Web".
It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sure It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sure
all the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, and all the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, and
that the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fully that the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fully
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 3, line 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Principles and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Principles and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Goals of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Goals of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Relationship between API and protocol . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Relationship between API and protocol . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. On interoperability and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. On interoperability and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Architecture and Functionality groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Architecture and Functionality groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Data transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Data transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Data framing and securing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Data framing and securing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Data formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Data formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Connection management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Connection management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Presentation and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Presentation and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Local system support functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Local system support functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.1. Changes from A.1. Changes from
draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-datagram-00 to -01 . . . 17 draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-datagram-00 to -01 . . . 18
A.2. Changes from draft-alvestrand-dispatch-01 to A.2. Changes from draft-alvestrand-dispatch-01 to
draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.3. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-00 to -01 . . . . . . 17 A.3. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-00 to -01 . . . . . . 19
A.4. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-01 to A.4. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-01 to
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.5. Changes from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview -00 to -01 . . . . 18 A.5. Changes from -00 to -01 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 19
A.6. Changes from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview -01 to -02 . . . . 18 A.6. Changes from -01 to -02 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A.7. Changes from -02 to -03 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 20
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Internet was, from very early in its lifetime, considered a The Internet was, from very early in its lifetime, considered a
possible vehicle for the deployment of real-time, interactive possible vehicle for the deployment of real-time, interactive
applications - with the most easily imaginable being audio applications - with the most easily imaginable being audio
conversations (aka "Internet telephony") and videoconferencing. conversations (aka "Internet telephony") and videoconferencing.
The first attempts to build this were dependent on special networks, The first attempts to build this were dependent on special networks,
special hardware and custom-built software, often at very high prices special hardware and custom-built software, often at very high prices
skipping to change at page 5, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 39
By reading this document and the documents it refers to, it should be By reading this document and the documents it refers to, it should be
possible to have all information needed to implement an RTCWEB possible to have all information needed to implement an RTCWEB
compatible implementation. compatible implementation.
2.2. Relationship between API and protocol 2.2. Relationship between API and protocol
The total RTCWEB/WEBRTC effort consists of two pieces: The total RTCWEB/WEBRTC effort consists of two pieces:
o A protocol specification, done in the IETF o A protocol specification, done in the IETF
o A Javascript API specification, done in the W3C [webrtc-api] o A Javascript API specification, done in the W3C
[W3C.WD-webrtc-20120209]
Together, these two specifications aim to provide an environment Together, these two specifications aim to provide an environment
where Javascript embedded in any page, viewed in any compatible where Javascript embedded in any page, viewed in any compatible
browser, when suitably authorized by its user, is able to set up browser, when suitably authorized by its user, is able to set up
communication using audio, video and auxiliary data, where the communication using audio, video and auxiliary data, where the
browser environment does not constrain the types of application in browser environment does not constrain the types of application in
which this functionality can be used. which this functionality can be used.
The protocol specification does not assume that all implementations The protocol specification does not assume that all implementations
implement this API; it is not intended to be possible by observing implement this API; it is not intended to be possible by observing
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
The list is in alphabetical order. The list is in alphabetical order.
Agent: Undefined term. See "SDP Agent" and "ICE Agent". Agent: Undefined term. See "SDP Agent" and "ICE Agent".
API: Application Programming Interface - a specification of a set of API: Application Programming Interface - a specification of a set of
calls and events, usually tied to a programming language or an calls and events, usually tied to a programming language or an
abstract formal specification such as WebIDL, with its defined abstract formal specification such as WebIDL, with its defined
semantics. semantics.
Browser: Used synonymously with "Interactive User Agent" as defined
in the HTML specification [W3C.WD-html5-20110525].
ICE Agent: An implementation of the ICE [RFC5245] protocol. An ICE ICE Agent: An implementation of the ICE [RFC5245] protocol. An ICE
Agent may also be an SDP Agent, but there exist ICE Agents that do Agent may also be an SDP Agent, but there exist ICE Agents that do
not use SDP (for instance those that use Jingle). not use SDP (for instance those that use Jingle).
Interactive: Communication between multiple parties, where the Interactive: Communication between multiple parties, where the
expectation is that an action from one party can cause a reaction expectation is that an action from one party can cause a reaction
by another party, and the reaction can be observed by the first by another party, and the reaction can be observed by the first
party, with the total time required for the action/reaction/ party, with the total time required for the action/reaction/
observation is on the order of no more than hundreds of observation is on the order of no more than hundreds of
milliseconds. milliseconds.
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 7, line 48
Media path: The path that media data follows from one browser to Media path: The path that media data follows from one browser to
another. another.
Protocol: A specification of a set of data units, their Protocol: A specification of a set of data units, their
representation, and rules for their transmission, with their representation, and rules for their transmission, with their
defined semantics. A protocol is usually thought of as going defined semantics. A protocol is usually thought of as going
between systems. between systems.
Real-time media: Media where generation of content and display of Real-time media: Media where generation of content and display of
content are intended to occur closely together in time (on the content are intended to occur closely together in time (on the
order of no more than hundreds of milliseconds). order of no more than hundreds of milliseconds). Real-time media
can be used to support interactive communication.
SDP Agent: The protocol implementation involved in the SDP offer/ SDP Agent: The protocol implementation involved in the SDP offer/
answer exchange, as defined in [RFC3264] section 3. answer exchange, as defined in [RFC3264] section 3.
Signaling: Communication that happens in order to establish, manage Signaling: Communication that happens in order to establish, manage
and control media paths. and control media paths.
Signaling Path: The communication channels used between entities Signaling Path: The communication channels used between entities
participating in signalling to transfer signaling. There may be participating in signalling to transfer signaling. There may be
more entities in the signaling path than in the media path. more entities in the signaling path than in the media path.
skipping to change at page 9, line 39 skipping to change at page 9, line 39
| | || | | ||
| | || | | ||
| +---------+| | +---------+|
+---------------------|------+ +---------------------|------+
| |
V V
Native OS Services Native OS Services
Figure 1: Browser Model Figure 1: Browser Model
Note that HTTP and Websockets are also offered to the Javascript
application through browser APIs.
As for all protocol and API specifications, there is no restriction As for all protocol and API specifications, there is no restriction
that the protocols can only be used to talk to another browser; since that the protocols can only be used to talk to another browser; since
they are fully specified, any device that implements the protocols they are fully specified, any device that implements the protocols
faithfully should be able to interoperate with the application faithfully should be able to interoperate with the application
running in the browser. running in the browser.
A commonly imagined model of deployment is the one depicted below. A commonly imagined model of deployment is the one depicted below.
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| Web | | Web | | Web | | Web |
| | Signalling | | | | Signalling | |
| |-------------| | | |-------------| |
| Server | path | Server | | Server | path | Server |
| | | | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
/ \ / \
/ \ Proprietary over / \ Application-defined over
/ \ HTTP/Websockets / \ HTTP/Websockets
/ \ / \
/ Proprietary over \ / Application-defined over \
/ HTTP/Websockets \ / HTTP/Websockets \
/ \ / \
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
|JS/HTML/CSS| |JS/HTML/CSS| |JS/HTML/CSS| |JS/HTML/CSS|
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| Browser | ------------------------- | Browser | | Browser | ------------------------- | Browser |
| | Media path | | | | Media path | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
Figure 2: Browser RTC Trapezoid Figure 2: Browser RTC Trapezoid
If the two Web servers are operated by different entities, the
signalling path needs to be agreed upon, either by standardization or
by other means of agreement; for example, both servers might
implement SIP, and the servers would talk SIP to each other, and each
would translate between the SIP protocol and their proprietary
representation for sending to their application running in the
browser. This part is outside the scope of the RTCWEB standars
suite.
On this drawing, the critical part to note is that the media path On this drawing, the critical part to note is that the media path
("low path") goes directly between the browsers, so it has to be ("low path") goes directly between the browsers, so it has to be
conformant to the specifications of the RTCWEB protocol suite; the conformant to the specifications of the RTCWEB protocol suite; the
signalling path ("high path") goes via servers that can modify, signalling path ("high path") goes via servers that can modify,
translate or massage the signals as needed. translate or massage the signals as needed.
If the two Web servers are operated by different entities, the inter-
server signalling mechanism needs to be agreed upon, either by
standardization or by other means of agreement. Existing protocols
(for example SIP or XMPP) could be used between servers, while either
a standards-based or proprietary protocol could be used between the
browser and the web server.
For example, if both operators' servers implement SIP, SIP could be
used for communication between servers, along with either a
standardized signaling mechanism (e.g. SIP over Websockets) or a
proprietary signaling mechanism used between the application running
in the browser and the web server. Similarly, if both operators'
servers implement XMPP, XMPP couild be used for communication between
XMPP servers, with either a standardized signaling mechanism (e.g.
XMPP over Websockets or BOSH) or a proprietary signaling mechanism
used between the application running in the browser and the web
server.
The choice of protocols, and definition of the translation between
them, is outside the scope of the RTCWEB standards suite described in
the document.
The functionality groups that are needed in the browser can be The functionality groups that are needed in the browser can be
specified, more or less from the bottom up, as: specified, more or less from the bottom up, as:
o Data transport: TCP, UDP and the means to securely set up o Data transport: TCP, UDP and the means to securely set up
connections between entities, as well as the functions for connections between entities, as well as the functions for
deciding when to send data: Congestion management, bandwidth deciding when to send data: Congestion management, bandwidth
estimation and so on. estimation and so on.
o Data framing: RTP and other data formats that serve as containers, o Data framing: RTP and other data formats that serve as containers,
and their functions for data confidentiality and integrity. and their functions for data confidentiality and integrity.
skipping to change at page 12, line 34 skipping to change at page 13, line 6
The details of interactions with intermediate boxes, such as The details of interactions with intermediate boxes, such as
firewalls, relays and NAT boxes, is described in <WORKING GROUP DRAFT firewalls, relays and NAT boxes, is described in <WORKING GROUP DRAFT
"PEER TO PEER CONNECTIVITY">. "PEER TO PEER CONNECTIVITY">.
5. Data framing and securing 5. Data framing and securing
The format for media transport is RTP [RFC3550]. Implementation of The format for media transport is RTP [RFC3550]. Implementation of
SRTP [RFC3711] is required for all implementations. SRTP [RFC3711] is required for all implementations.
The detailed considerations for usage of functions from RTP and SRTP The detailed considerations for usage of functions from RTP and SRTP
are given in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]. Key negotiation for SRTP are given in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]. The security
is described in <MISSING>. Transfer of data that is not in RTP considerations for the RTCWEB use case are in
format is described in <MISSING>. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security], and the resulting security functions are
described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] Considerations for the
transfer of data that is not in RTP format is described in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], and the resulting protocol is
described in [I-D.jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol] (not yet a WG document)
6. Data formats 6. Data formats
The intent of this specification is to allow each communications The intent of this specification is to allow each communications
event to use the data formats that are best suited for that event to use the data formats that are best suited for that
particular instance, where a format is supported by both sides of the particular instance, where a format is supported by both sides of the
connection. However, a minimum standard is greatly helpful in order connection. However, a minimum standard is greatly helpful in order
to ensure that communication can be achieved. This document to ensure that communication can be achieved. This document
specifies a minimum baseline that will be supported by all specifies a minimum baseline that will be supported by all
implementations of this specification, and leaves further codecs to implementations of this specification, and leaves further codecs to
be included at the will of the implementor. be included at the will of the implementor.
The mandatory to implement codecs, as well as any profiling The mandatory to implement codecs, as well as any profiling
requirements for both mandatory and optional codecs, is described in requirements for both mandatory and optional codecs, is described in
<WORKING GROUP DRAFT "MEDIA PROCESSING">. <WORKING GROUP DRAFT "MEDIA PROCESSING"> (candidate draft:
[I-D.cbran-rtcweb-codec].
7. Connection management 7. Connection management
The methods, mechanisms and requirements for setting up, negotiating The methods, mechanisms and requirements for setting up, negotiating
and tearing down connections is a large subject, and one where it is and tearing down connections is a large subject, and one where it is
desirable to have both interoperability and freedom to innovate. desirable to have both interoperability and freedom to innovate.
The following principles apply: The following principles apply:
1. The media negotiations will be done using the same SDP offer/ 1. The RTCWEB media negotiations will be capable of representing the
answer semantics that are used in SIP [RFC3264], in such a way same SDP offer/answer semantics that are used in SIP [RFC3264],
that it is possible to build a signalling gateway between SIP and in such a way that it is possible to build a signalling gateway
the RTCWEB media negotiation. between SIP and the RTCWEB media negotiation.
2. It will be possible to gateway between legacy SIP devices that 2. It will be possible to gateway between legacy SIP devices that
support ICE and appropriate RTP / SDP mechanisms and codecs support ICE and appropriate RTP / SDP mechanisms, codecs and
without using a media gateway. A signaling gateway to convert security mechanisms without using a media gateway. A signaling
between the signaling on the web side to the SIP signaling may be gateway to convert between the signaling on the web side to the
needed. SIP signaling may be needed.
3. When a new codec is specified, and the SDP for the new codec is 3. When a new codec is specified, and the SDP for the new codec is
specified in the MMUSIC WG, no other standardization would should specified in the MMUSIC WG, no other standardization would should
be required for it to be possible to use that in the web be required for it to be possible to use that in the web
browsers. Adding new codecs which might have new SDP parameters browsers. Adding new codecs which might have new SDP parameters
should not change the APIs between the browser and javascript should not change the APIs between the browser and javascript
application. As soon as the browsers support the new codecs, old application. As soon as the browsers support the new codecs, old
applications written before the codecs were specified should applications written before the codecs were specified should
automatically be able to use the new codecs where appropriate automatically be able to use the new codecs where appropriate
with no changes to the JS applications. with no changes to the JS applications.
The particular choices made for RTCWEB are described in <WORKING The particular choices made for RTCWEB, and their implications for
GROUP DRAFT "SIGNALING AND NEGOTIATION">. the API offered by a browser implementing RTCWEB, are described in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]
8. Presentation and control 8. Presentation and control
The most important part of control is the user's control over the The most important part of control is the user's control over the
browser's interaction with input/output devices and communications browser's interaction with input/output devices and communications
channels. It is important that the user have some way of figuring channels. It is important that the user have some way of figuring
out where his audio, video or texting is being sent, for what out where his audio, video or texting is being sent, for what
purported reason, and what guarantees are made by the parties that purported reason, and what guarantees are made by the parties that
form part of this control channel. This is largely a local function form part of this control channel. This is largely a local function
between the browser, the underlying operating system and the user between the browser, the underlying operating system and the user
interface; this is being worked on as part of the W3C API effort, and interface; this is being worked on as part of the W3C API effort, and
will be part of [webrtc-api] will be part of the peer connection API [W3C.WD-webrtc-20120209], and
the device control API [getusermedia]. Considerations for the
implications of wanting to identify correspondents are described in
[I-D.rescorla-rtcweb-generic-idp] (not a WG item).
9. Local system support functions 9. Local system support functions
These are characterized by the fact that the quality of these These are characterized by the fact that the quality of these
functions strongly influences the user experience, but the exact functions strongly influences the user experience, but the exact
algorithm does not need coordination. In some cases (for instance algorithm does not need coordination. In some cases (for instance
echo cancellation, as described below), the overall system definition echo cancellation, as described below), the overall system definition
may need to specify that the overall system needs to have some may need to specify that the overall system needs to have some
characteristics for which these facilities are useful, without characteristics for which these facilities are useful, without
requiring them to be implemented a certain way. requiring them to be implemented a certain way.
skipping to change at page 14, line 36 skipping to change at page 15, line 19
o Privacy concerns must be satisfied; for instance, if remote o Privacy concerns must be satisfied; for instance, if remote
control of camera is offered, the APIs should be available to let control of camera is offered, the APIs should be available to let
the local participant to figure out who's controlling the camera, the local participant to figure out who's controlling the camera,
and possibly decide to revoke the permission for camera usage. and possibly decide to revoke the permission for camera usage.
o Automatic gain control, if present, should normalize a speaking o Automatic gain control, if present, should normalize a speaking
voice into <whatever dB metrics makes sense here - most important voice into <whatever dB metrics makes sense here - most important
that we have one only> that we have one only>
The requirements on RTCWEB systems in this category are found in The requirements on RTCWEB systems in this category are found in
<WORKING GROUP DRAFT "MEDIA PROCESSING">. <WORKING GROUP DRAFT "MEDIA PROCESSING">; the proposed API for
control of local devices are found in [getusermedia].
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA. This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC. RFC.
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 15, line 46 skipping to change at page 16, line 29
Thanks to Jonathan Rosenberg, Matthew Kaufman and others at Skype for Thanks to Jonathan Rosenberg, Matthew Kaufman and others at Skype for
the ASCII drawings in section 1. the ASCII drawings in section 1.
Thanks to Justin Uberti, Henry Sinnreich, Colin Perkins and Simon Thanks to Justin Uberti, Henry Sinnreich, Colin Perkins and Simon
Leinen for document review. Leinen for document review.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "RTCWeb Datagram
Connection", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-00 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]
Uberti, J. and C. Jennings, "Javascript Session
Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-00 (work
in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]
Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "RTP Requirements Perkins, C., Ott, J., and M. Westerlund, "Web Real-Time
for RTC-Web", draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-00 (work in Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP",
progress), September 2011. draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-01 (work in progress),
October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for RTC-Web", Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for RTC-Web",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-01 (work in progress),
September 2011. October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
Rescorla, E., "RTCWEB Security Architecture",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-00 (work in progress),
January 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004. RFC 3711, March 2004.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.cbran-rtcweb-codec]
Bran, C. and C. Jennings, "WebRTC Codec and Media
Processing Requirements", draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01
(work in progress), October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements]
Holmberg, C., Hakansson, S., and G. Eriksson, "Web Real- Holmberg, C., Eriksson, G., and S. Hakansson, "Web Real-
Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements", Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-05 (work in draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-06 (work in
progress), September 2011. progress), October 2011.
[I-D.jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channel
Protocol", draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol-00 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.rescorla-rtcweb-generic-idp]
Rescorla, E., "RTCWEB Generic Identity Provider
Interface", draft-rescorla-rtcweb-generic-idp-00 (work in
progress), January 2012.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, October 2004. BCP 95, RFC 3935, October 2004.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
April 2010. April 2010.
[webrtc-api] [W3C.WD-html5-20110525]
Bergkvist, Burnett, Jennings, Narayanan, "WebRTC 1.0: Hickson, I., "HTML5", World Wide Web Consortium
Real-time Communication Between Browsers", August 2011. LastCall WD-html5-20110525, May 2011,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525>.
Available at [W3C.WD-webrtc-20120209]
http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html Bergkvist, A., Burnett, D., Narayanan, A., and C.
Jennings, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
Browsers", World Wide Web Consortium WD WD-webrtc-
20120209, February 2012,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webrtc-20120209>.
[getusermedia]
Burnett, D. and A. Narayanan, "getusermedia: Getting
access to local devices that can generate multimedia
streams", December 2011,
<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html>.
Appendix A. Change log Appendix A. Change log
This section may be deleted by the RFC Editor when preparing for This section may be deleted by the RFC Editor when preparing for
publication. publication.
A.1. Changes from draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-datagram-00 to -01 A.1. Changes from draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-datagram-00 to -01
Added section "On interoperability and innovation" Added section "On interoperability and innovation"
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 27
Spell-checked document. Spell-checked document.
A.4. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-01 to A.4. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-01 to
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-00 draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-00
Changed draft name and document date. Changed draft name and document date.
Removed unused references Removed unused references
A.5. Changes from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview -00 to -01 A.5. Changes from -00 to -01 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview
Added architecture figures to section 2. Added architecture figures to section 2.
Changed the description of "echo cancellation" under "local system Changed the description of "echo cancellation" under "local system
support functions". support functions".
Added a few more definitions. Added a few more definitions.
A.6. Changes from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview -01 to -02 A.6. Changes from -01 to -02 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview
Added pointers to use cases, security and rtp-usage drafts (now WG Added pointers to use cases, security and rtp-usage drafts (now WG
drafts). drafts).
Changed description of SRTP from mandatory-to-use to mandatory-to- Changed description of SRTP from mandatory-to-use to mandatory-to-
implement. implement.
Added the "3 principles of negotiation" to the connection management Added the "3 principles of negotiation" to the connection management
section. section.
Added an explicit statement that ICE is required for both NAT and Added an explicit statement that ICE is required for both NAT and
consent-to-receive. consent-to-receive.
A.7. Changes from -02 to -03 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview
Added references to a number of new drafts.
Expanded the description text under the "trapezoid" drawing with some
more text discussed on the list.
Changed the "Connection management" sentence from "will be done using
SDP offer/answer" to "will be capable of representing SDP offer/
answer" - this seems more consistent with JSEP.
Added "security mechanisms" to the things a non-gatewayed SIP devices
must support in order to not need a media gateway.
Added a definition for "browser".
Author's Address Author's Address
Harald T. Alvestrand Harald T. Alvestrand
Google Google
Kungsbron 2 Kungsbron 2
Stockholm, 11122 Stockholm, 11122
Sweden Sweden
Email: harald@alvestrand.no Email: harald@alvestrand.no
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
87 lines changed or deleted 177 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/