A business person's overview of the state of WebRTC standards as at Nov 2013.

1. 1
11/24/2013

2. Session Abstract
This session will start with a quick non-technical update on the standards and then focus
on regulatory issues. With many recent regulatory moves around VoIP, government
recording, and other areas, understanding the regulatory response to WebRTC is a critical
part of the overall strategy, especially for Service Providers.
2
11/24/2013

3. Standards Overview & Regulatory
Issues
Session B2-2
E. Brent Kelly, Ph.D.
President and Principal Analyst KelCor, Inc.
Vice President and Principal Analyst, Constellation Research
bkelly@kelcor.com; brent@constellationr.com
twitter: @ebkell
3
11/24/2013

4. Speakers
• Tim Panton
– Director
– Westhawk Ltd
• Martha Buyer
– Principal
– Law Offices of Martha Buyer
4
11/24/2013

5. Collaboration and Conferencing
Applications
Brent Kelly
Title
Company
Email
Twitter, etc
Put the moderator logo here
at this size – remove this box
5
11/24/2013

6. Tim Panton
Director
Westhawk Ltd
WEBRTC STANDARDS
OVERVIEW
6
11/24/2013

7. WebRTC definition
•
•
•
•
•
•
Realtime
voice / video /data
browser based
no plugins
secure
interoperable
7
11/24/2013

8. Standards
•
•
•
•
•
IETF
W3C
Loosely based on pre-existing standards
$100s Millions of IPR - donated
Google, Cisco, Mozilla, Skype, Tropo, ATT, E///, Luc
ent etc.
8
11/24/2013

9. Big Picture
WebServer
HTTP signaling
HTTP signaling
Peer to Peer Media
9
11/24/2013

10. Protocol Standards (IETF)
The Internet Engineering Taskforce (IETF) has
responsibility for the wire protocols used in RTCWeb
10
11/24/2013

11. Signaling Standards
• None
• It is up to the javascript in the browser to do
whatever is needed.
11
11/24/2013

12. Media Standards (rtcweb)
• Many
• Mostly pre-existing standards combined….
• STUN
• ICE
• TURN
• DTLS
• SRTP
• RTCP
• OPUS
• ULAW
• ???
12
11/24/2013

13. Why so many ?
The network environment of a web browser is not
the same as a desk phone
• Security – hostile LANs (coffee shops/hotels)
• Variability – home networks, wifi/3g
• Programmability – Javascript is dynamically loadable
The rtcweb stack of media standards addresses these differences
13
11/24/2013

14. IETF successes
Rtcweb
• works over many networks
• Is sufficiently well defined to be implemented from
the spec alone (tropo)
• Interop is possible via gateways to legacy
• Devices can talk with browsers
• Opus codec and security is leading edge
• Data channel has huge implications
14
11/24/2013

15. Opinion - devices
There is a huge market for devices and apps that speak
rtcweb, aren’t browsers but do RT media/data with them.
• Baby monitors
• Body scanners
• Toasters ( itoast )
• Video mixers
• Prison videophones
• Quadacoptors
This may be the biggest legacy of the webRTC effort.
15
11/24/2013

16. IETF failures
Rtcweb
• Fails in some networks
• Overly complex
• No selected video codec(s) - yet
16
11/24/2013

17. Opinion – video codecs
Background :
• H264 established player with paid for licensing
• VP8 new kid with free usage model
It seems likely we will reach a compromise. Browsers
will support both, devices will support which ever they
choose.
17
11/24/2013

18. API Standards (W3C)
W3C has responsibility for the Javascript API
• Methods
• DataStructures
exposed in the browser and used by the web pages.
18
11/24/2013

19. API Standards
•
•
•
•
getUserMedia()
RTCPeerConnection()
<video> - extended to support realtime
RTCSessionDescription()
19
11/24/2013

20. W3C successes
• Supported in 3 of the top 5 browsers
(Chrome, Firefox, Opera)
• No mandatory signaling so can adapt to fit use case
• API is usable
• DataChannel mimics websockets
• Leverages the webGL and webAudio APIs
20
11/24/2013

21. Opinion – WebGL etc
Availability of webGL and webAudio to web
programmers will enable significant innovation.
All those broadcast-only audio/video tricks – available
in realtime in a browser.
Combined with P2P datachannel – we may see new
application classes emerge.
21
11/24/2013

22. W3C failures
• Not yet supported in 2 of the top 5 browsers
(IE, Safari)
• No accommodation for mobile
• Use of SDP as a datastructure was a mistake
• API is so ugly it will spawn a thousand wrapper
libraries
• Identity support could be better
22
11/24/2013

23. Opinion – ORTC etc.
Safari and IE will release ‘compatible’ webRTC
offerings once 1.0 standard is settled. (<1 year?)
Weaknesses in the 1.0 API will drive rapid
development/adoption of a 2.0 standard
2.0 Standard will be more object oriented and not
based on SDP but largely compatible with 1.0 (via
polyfills) – see OTRC for an example.
23
11/24/2013

24. TLDR;
Standards effort has succeeded despite complex 2 org
structure.
Already deployed in close to final form on most
desktops. (~1BN)
Weakness in mobile and SDP dependence will be
addressed in future 2.0 standard.
24
11/24/2013

25. Questions?
Tim Panton.
twitter: @steely_glint
Email: thp@westhawk.co.uk
25
11/24/2013