Although we could not participate (conflict in schedule), it would seem as though there is some progress being made..
– SDP (decision made to try Plan A, if that fails try Plan B, at least we got that far)
– dataChannel (createdataChannel before createOffer or createAnswer, some talk around supporting defined protocols, decent progress here)
– trickle ICE (more definition to the protocol, great progress here)
Participants in the WebRTC & RTCWEB working groups will be in Boston Feb 5-7, hosted by Acme Packet.
Topics for discussion will revolve mainly around SDP & NAT traversal – namely trickle-ICE. What’s trickle ICE? Basically, with traditional “ICE” we have to gather all the candidates before we start negotiation, whereas with “trickle ICE” we would gather candidates while we negotiate, which means setup time for calls could be markably reduced.
What we will likely not see any forward movement on at this interim meeting is any decision around MTI video codec(s).
From the IETF mail list…
Ted Hardie offered this up as a reading list…
You may also want to look at the proceedings from the Atlanta meeting;
in particular, this was suggested as good background reading:
Cullen Jennings added to that…
Some more background reading that is useful context
and Emil Imov added more re: trickle-ICE…
Just a quick note to let you know that the trickle ICE draft has been
updated as per the discussions in Atlanta’s MMUSIC session. A new draft
describing trickle ICE’s usage with SIP has also been submitted: