Minutes IETF 97 Seoul, November 14th, 16th, and 18th, 2016 Chairs: Ted Hardie, Cullen Jennings, Sean Turner Presentations: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/proceedings Jabber logs: https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/rtcweb/2016-11-14.html , https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/rtcweb/2016-11-16.html, https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/rtcweb/2016-11-18.html Meetecho Recordings: http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF97_RTCWEB&chapter=chapter_1 http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF97_RTCWEB_II&chapter=chapter_1 http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF97_RTCWEB_III&chapter=chapter_1 Agenda for Day 1 The group reviewed progress since the last update, and then dived into a review of JSEP (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-rtcweb-sessa-jsep-00.pdf) Upon review: There were no objections to RtpTransceiver.currentDirection/.direction split. There were no objections to changing the ICE pool size after calling setLocalDescription. For making MID (and maybe RID) be generated securely (counter/random), it was decided that MID and RID can use different mechanisms but they each have to be secure. There were no objections to cleaning up simulcast language There was no support for "receiving simulcast", and much support instead for leaving it off the table. On the topic of PT-based SSRC latching: We need a PR by Wednesday. Some want to remove SSRC latching. Others want to make the "route to the first one" a state you can't get into. RTP routing in general: Colin and Jonathan and Cullen and Christer will come back on Wednesday with an answer of the question of "what documents should define demux" (BUNDLE, JSEP, etc). For createOffer invalidation: most seem to agree that createOffer invalidates the results of all previous calls to createOffer. But Justin wants to make sure it doesn't break anything. Harald and Peter and EKR will make a "study team" to figure this out and propose something on Wednesday. Decision around re-offering with more codecs: leave the spec as-is, make a separate issue for incoming offers that have different codecs, and maybe add an API for offering more codecs someday, but not now. Decision for non-square pixels: WebRTC endoints don't need to support sending non-square pixels, but SHOULD receive/render them, and could send them if it chose. And change "highest q=" to "first". Decision for removeTrack: it sets the RtpSender.track to null to stop sending immediately and be reversible, and also sets the transceiver direction to removing sending (sendreccv => recvonly or sendonly => inactive) Day 2 For JSEP, the group reviewed the updated proposals based on Day 1 issues, especially the question of when an offer is invalidated (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-rtcweb-options-for-invalidating-offers-00.pdf). The group in the room ultimately accepted a proposal based on option D, subject to PR language. The group also reviewed the FEC draft, draft-copeland-rtcweb-p2p-idp, and the IP handling draft. The FEC draft (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-rtcweb-fec-00.pdf) was uncontroversial . The IP handling draft proposal garned a good bit of discussion on implicit consent models, especially in the case where no media flow could be used as a proxy . For the resolution of this issue, please see day 3 (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-rtcweb-ip-address-handling-00.pdf). Day 3 # Overview draft (chairs) We want to publish it now to remove it from blocking other specs in RFC Editor Q. No objections. WGLC will start soon. # Security draft (chairs) Plan to WGLC in beginning of year. # IP Handling Topic - Martin Goal is to get this done before IETF 98 Martin did not change mode 1,2,3,4, it is from latest version of draft. EKR pointed the text seemed wrong. Live editing ensued. Justin pointed out that where we put the justification in the text is sort of editorial. The end result is roughly that Mode 2 is default and Mode 1 is only used if there is consent. How to get consent is not defined by the spec but potential mechanism is to tie this consent to getUserMedia consent. Magnus would like it to be clear that Mode 4 includes TURN relays. Justin plans to make a pass over doc moving to MUST / SHOULD / MAY style language. Justin suggested that if consent is not obtained, then use Mode 2. EKR good with that. Plan going forward. PR will get filed by Martin. Justin will go back to list with this PR. No one in room objected to the wording or plan to take it to list