[rtcweb] Comments on use-cases drafts

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Mon, 29 August 2011 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD4021F8862 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.127
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.471, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOihmeDd5URd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19B321F8715 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rmohanr@cisco.com; l=4812; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1314610593; x=1315820193; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:from:to; bh=tkRGv1f13wPhs/dFAkzBzmOOmFMFT75jwsAiWdAJUFY=; b=Rp3s8CxQkuDaq+Rsd6EYi1Gn94U3udqq8o1Ot4NvF7AXyFAk3mz+g6MG PgLvLADFUKpS4IQkr4gt7Eagw7kV3X01P/2hqGtI30fg2IYyGO2d7TvST +YZDJ/LqZ4DJjGi8BEi55JYwwlB925CcFcHRDKv6hS0uAkRytv5gIdTLF g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwGAC5dW05Io8UQ/2dsb2JhbABCgk2WHI8Ud4FCAQEDEgEJEQNbASoGGAdXAQQLEBqdf4EjAZ4YhWxgBIdikFSLdQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.68,296,1312156800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="112942076"
Received: from bgl-core-1.cisco.com ([72.163.197.16]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2011 09:36:22 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com [72.163.129.201]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7T9aMvA022149 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:36:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-417.cisco.com ([72.163.129.213]) by xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:06:22 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC662F.1D1DB6D4"
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:06:21 +0530
Message-ID: <35BCE99A477D6A4986FB2216D8CF2CFD077D800D@XMB-BGL-417.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Comments on use-cases drafts
Thread-Index: AcxmLxxnD2NmLXRsTVa2lFTCxdKamw==
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2011 09:36:22.0617 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D315490:01CC662F]
Subject: [rtcweb] Comments on use-cases drafts
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:35:11 -0000

Hi,

I have a couple of comments on the use-case sections 4.2 and 4.3 of
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-03

 

Section 4.2.1.1

I suppose when you say "mute incoming media" you are giving the
flexibility to mute audio or video or both. You may want to explicitly
spell out that similar to the way it is done for sending media.

 

Section 4.2.3

When a session moves across different network adapters is the assumption
the same user device is being used ? or can the user device also change
? if the user device can change then the devices for audio, video
input/output may also change. Is this covered ? or not in scope ?

 

 

Section 4.2.7.1

I see that it is mentioned in the draft that mixing of audio is locally
done in the browser. Do we also want to consider a case where mixing can
be done by a network element rather than a browser ? I see there is a
use-case in Browser/Server that has this in section 4.3.3.1. Is this
covering the cases where a browser is not capable of mixing and a server
is involved between a Browser to browser call ?

 

Regards,

Ram