WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS
charter-ietf-wish-01-00

[Ballot comment]
I assume the WG will have to detail the architecture this is expected to work in a bit more clearly to ensure that they agree what they are talking about and who are active parties and which are servers for the signalling vs the media flow direction.

[Ballot comment]
I am on the verge of a block here.

So the goal is to establish a one-way media over an WebRTC peer connection between a media producer and a consumer. What isn't clear in this work is who is the intended initiator to this communication. After having looked in draft-imurillo-whip it appears the intention is for the media producer (or its controller) to initiate the HTTP connection to a consumer (or its controller). Where the necessary configuration is established.

I assume based on signalling the media flow could be reversed so the consumer initates the media establishment, but that is also not clear. Clarifying the high level functionality here in the charter might avoid the need for specifically commenting on screens. Because that would basically work if the consumer can be the initiator and request media to it.

The other aspect that I realize is missing is the scope of capability negotiation here and preference indication. Defining this from a WebRTC API perspective might be possible but is not clear. What is needed here? What is assumed about third parties creating media profiles for this type of devices?

[Ballot comment]
s/assure/ensure/

As several others have said, it would be helpful to see milestones so that it is clear whether the objective is a single spec or multiple specs.

[Ballot comment]
I'm not sure whether this should be part of the charter, but would be helpful for it to specify which version of HTTPS will be targeted, or state a minimum version of HTTPS?

[Ballot comment]
Is SDP "Signaling Description Protocol" or "Session Description Protocol" ?

Like Alvaro, I would prefer to drop the commercial company names as they bring little to the discussion.

Could the background be more concise ?

Will the 'product' of this WG be a single document that is a specification  as indicated by "The product of this working group will be a specification" ? If so, could the work be done in another WG ?

We will also need to ensure that this WG is exposed to MOPS WG and vice-versa.

[Ballot comment]
I don't object to this work, but the list of companies and tools made me wonder about whether people associated with them will be engaged in this work.  Are they?  A quick look at the wish archive doesn't show much, but the discussion has probably been carried out elsewhere.

In either case, I think it would be a good idea for the charter to only generically talk about the interest in this type of work and not explicitly mention companies/tools.