CLUE WG Interim Meeting San Jose, CA Sept. 19-20, 2012 Mary Barnes (WG co-chair) Paul Kyzivat (WG co-chair)

Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: the IETF plenary session, any IETF working group or portion thereof, the IESG or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 (updated by RFC 4879). Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 for details. A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all IETF rules of process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements. A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public.

Agenda (day 2) 09:00-9:30 Issue Summary from Wednesday 09:30-10:30 Updated tele-medical call flow based on Paul's new proposal 10:30-10:45 Break (with coffee/snacks) 10:45-12:30 Key Issue Discussion (continued) 12:30-12:45 Break (with coffee/snacks) 12:45-14:00 Discussion of way forward and summary of action items

Issues/items for further discussion Need to decide whether advertisement is complete information "all" or just a "delta" [Note: current framework is "all"] Can the advertisement indicate limitations on simulcast? Note: current framework implicitly supports simulcast. Site Switching: there is an issue when you have multiple captures and do site switching. It needs to be consistent. May need real-time updates for spatial information, time synchronization, etc. - e.g., RTCP, XCON notifications.

Issues/items for further discussion Call Flow: Do we need a way to reject a Configure message? - If yes, what does it mean if you do? Call Flow: How do we signal support for Clue? Call Flow: What is advantage of not having a 3rd O/A exchange in the session setup? Call Flow: Must the configuration be consistent with the current SDP?

Issues/items for further discussion Ticket #12: What CLUE information is carried in SDP? What CLUE-specific information should be in an initial SDP? What additional CLUE-specific information should be in subsequent SDPs? Ticket #13: What CLUE information is carried in CLUE specific signaling? Ticket #15: What signaling protocol should be used for the CLUE information? General agreement to use XML schema. 11. What information is required to be supported (i.e., must specify whether information is optional or mandatory)?

Way Forward for work items (afternoon) Agreement on way forward for RTP Agree the data necessary to be exchanged (independent of signaling solution) CLUE Instance model may help to determine when and what signaling is required (e.g., based on user actions) Media stream model will inform signaling solution Agree the basic signaling model, with the following considerations: interworking with non-CLUE endpoints Reusability and interworking with other multi-stream applications (e.g., RTCWEB) Use call flows and data model to understand signaling details.

Going Forward Action items with assignees identified Document authors assigned to produce target WG drafts reflecting consensus to date.