Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

WebRTC standards update - November 2014

1,697 views

Published on

WebRTC standards update - November 2014

Published in: Internet

WebRTC standards update - November 2014

  1. 1. WebRTC standards update (November 2014) Victor Pascual Avila Victor.Pascual@quobis.com @victorpascual Antón Román Portabales Anton.Roman@quobis.com @antonroman
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. 3 So here we are today…
  4. 4. 4 @victorpascual @antonroman #sthlmwebrtc
  5. 5. About Victor Technology, Innovation & Strategy Consultant Main focus: help make WebRTC happen – involved in WebRTC standardization, development and first industry deployments (on-going RFX's, PoC's and field trials) Other activities: - Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) - IETF contributor (SIP, Diameter and WebRTC areas) - IETF STRAW WG co-chair - SIP Forum WebRTC Task Group co-chair - WebRTCHacks.com co-founder and blogger - Independent Expert at European Commission - Associate Professor at Universitat Pompeu Fabra
  6. 6. About Anton • CTO @ Quobis: involved in first industry deployments (on-­‐going RFX’s, PoCs and field trials). • Background in SIP and IMS. • GeVng involved in IETF acXviXes. • Involved in more than 80 WebRTC PoC with operators, call centers, gateway vendors and open source soluXons. • Reviewer of some WebRTC books and author of some posts at webrtchacks.com 6
  7. 7. What is WebRTC? A browser-embedded media engine
  8. 8. WebRTC standards (Signaling) (Media) (Signaling) “Set or RTC APIs for Web Browsers” “New protocol profile”
  9. 9. RTCWeb WG (and other) - Audio codecs – G.711, Opus - Video codecs – H.264, VP8 - Media codecs are negotiated with SDP (for now at least) - Requires Secure RTP (SRTP) – DTLS-SRTP (SDES is prohibited) - Requires Peer-2-peer NAT traversal tools (STUN, TURN, ICE) – trickle ICE - Multiplexing: RTPs & RTP+RTCP - Tools for firewall traversal - DataChannel - Etc. NEW PROTOCOL PROFILE FOR MEDIA
  10. 10. RTCWeb WG
  11. 11. 11
  12. 12. 12
  13. 13. 13
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. 15
  16. 16. WebRTC Doesn’t Define Signaling Don’t panic, it’s not a bad thing!
  17. 17. 17
  18. 18. Signaling Plane • WebRTC has no defined signaling method • JavaScript app downloaded from web server • Popular choices are: • SIP over Websockets - Standard mechanism (RFC7118): Extend SIP directly into the browser by embedding a SIP stack directly into the webpage – typically based on JavaScript - WebSocket create a full-duplex channel right from the web browser - Popular examples are jsSIP, sip-js, QoffeeSIP, or sipML5 • Call Control API - proprietary signaling scheme based on more traditional web tools and techniques - “standard” APIs enhanced to include WebRTC support • Other alternatives based on XMPP, JSON or f00b4r Some discussion on the topic: http://webrtchacks.com/signalling-options-for-webrtc-applications/
  19. 19. Interworking Towards Legacy VoIP? • A browser-embedded media engine • Best-of-breed echo canceler • Video jitter buffer, image enhancer • Audio codecs – G.711, Opus are MTI • Video codecs – H.264 vs. VP8 (MTI TBD - IPR discussion) • Media codecs are negotiated with SDP (for now at least) • Requires Secure RTP (SRTP) – DTLS • Requires Peer-2-peer NAT traversal tools (STUN, TURN, ICE) – trickle ICE • Multiplexing: RTPs & RTP+RTCP • Yes, your favorite SIP client implementation is compatible with most of this. But, the vast majority of deployments • Use plain RTP (and SDES if encrypted at all) • Do not support STUN/TURN/ICE • Do not support multiplexing (ok, not really an issue) • Use different codecs that might not be supported on the WebRTC side
  20. 20. WebRTC signaling and media is NOT compatible with existing VoIP/IMS deployments – gateways are required to bridge the two worlds
  21. 21. The Video Codec Battle Some discussion on the topic: http://webrtchacks.com/cisco-openh264/
  22. 22. Result of The Discussion? Room participants: 30/50 in favor of H.264 Remote participants (minority): 75/25 in favor of VP8 → No clear consensus No decision Some discussion on the topic: http://webrtchacks.com/ietf-finally-made-decision-mandatory- implement-mti-video-codec-webrtc/
  23. 23. 24
  24. 24. 25
  25. 25. 26 hap://blogs.cisco.com/collaboraXon/ciscos-­‐openh264-­‐ now-­‐part-­‐of-­‐firefox/
  26. 26. 27
  27. 27. 28
  28. 28. 29
  29. 29. 30
  30. 30. 31
  31. 31. 32
  32. 32. 33
  33. 33. 34
  34. 34. Photo taken by Dan York 35
  35. 35. Fresh News! (from last night -­‐-­‐ yup, we woke up at 3am) 36
  36. 36. But… 37
  37. 37. VP9 vs. H.265 38
  38. 38. 39
  39. 39. WebRTC WG “The mission of the W3C WebRTC WG is to define client-side APIs to enable Real-Time Communications in Web-browsers. These APIs should enable building applications that can be run inside a browser, requiring no extra downloads or plugins, that allow communication between parties using audio, video and supplementary real-time communication, without having to use intervening servers (unless needed for firewall traversal).” Discussion: provides the current API in its form (e.g. based on SDP O/A) the flexibility Web developers need? Answer: well, not really but it's good enough for most of the use cases we have today Alternative proposals: Microsoft's CU-RTC- WEB (Aug'12), WebRTC Object API (ORTC) (Aug'13) Next step: “Done is better than perfect”, Let's finish WebRTC 1.0, Let the industry adopt it Future work: “fix/improve things in WebRTC 2.0 or even 1.1”, Backward interoperability? Obtain local media Setup Peer Connection Attach media or Data Close Connection ← getUserMedia(), etc. ← RTCPeerConnection(), etc. ← addStream(), createOffer(), etc.
  40. 40. iswebrtcreadyyet.com Browser Support
  41. 41. 42
  42. 42. 43
  43. 43. Browser API 1.1 2.0 ? Some discussion on the topic: http://webrtchacks.com/why-the-webrtc-api-has-it-wrong- interview-with-webrtc-object-api-ortc-co-author-inaki-baz-3-2/
  44. 44. Browser API http://status.modern.ie/
  45. 45. Browser API http://status.modern.ie/
  46. 46. Browser API
  47. 47. Plug-­‐in free or free plug-­‐in? 48
  48. 48. 49
  49. 49. 50
  50. 50. 51
  51. 51. 52
  52. 52. 53
  53. 53. 54
  54. 54. 55 hap://webrtchacks.com/ortc-­‐qa-­‐robin-­‐raymond/
  55. 55. 56 hap://blog.webrtc.is/2014/07/01/google-­‐ chrome-­‐38-­‐39-­‐to-­‐ship-­‐with-­‐ortc-­‐webrtc-­‐1-­‐1-­‐apis/ Well… not really
  56. 56. 57
  57. 57. 58 ORTC editor
  58. 58. 59 WebRTC editor
  59. 59. 11/17/14 60
  60. 60. WebRTC Access to IMS (r12) http://webrtchacks.com/ims-approach-webrtc/
  61. 61. Adding New Wheels to IMS with WebRTC
  62. 62. 3GPP TS 23.228 V12.5.0 (2014-06)
  63. 63. Reference Architecture P C E F N A T I P - C A N WWSF W1 W2 WIC UE I / S - CSCF W4 WAF W5 eP - CSCF Mw Iq eIMS - AGW H / V - PCRF Gx Rx W3 IMS - ALG
  64. 64. Interworking Towards Legacy IMS codec 1 SRTP BFCP SCTP DTLS UDP UDP IP codec 1 codec 2 SRTP RTP TCP IP codec 2 RTP SCTP DTLS IP UDP UDP UDP IP IP UDP IP IP UE eIMS - AGW peer BFCP TCP IP UE eIMS - AGW peer MSRP SCTP DTLS IP MSRP SCTP DTLS IP MSRP TCP IP UDP UDP MSRP TCP IP UE eIMS - AGW peer
  65. 65. SIP Forum WebRTC Task Group “the initial focus of the Task Group is to determine what the needs are for successful interoperability of WebRTC-to-SIP deployments” covering both Enterprises and Service Providers “recommendations, Reference Architecture Documents, Certifications, and/or White Papers”
  66. 66. Alliance for Telecom Solutions
  67. 67. 68
  68. 68. WebRTC Interop Activity Group “focuses on interoperability issues relating to the use of WebRTC” “the group is focused on enterprise WebRTC , interworking of WebRTC and other carrier technologies, and other existing videoconferencing systems” “develop an interoperability test framework and prepare for IOT events”
  69. 69. OMA RESTful Network API for WebRTC Signaling v.1.0 (Feb 2014)
  70. 70. GSMA How does WebRTC relate to VoLTE and RCS?
  71. 71. This slide might be outdated 72
  72. 72. This slide might be outdated 73
  73. 73. 74
  74. 74. hap://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-­‐content/uploads//WebRTC-­‐Whitepaper-­‐v13.pdf 75
  75. 75. 76
  76. 76. Thank You! Victor Pascual Avila Victor.Pascual@quobis.com @victorpascual Antón Román Portabales Anton.Roman@quobis.com @antonroman

×