Re: [rtcweb] URIs for rtcweb "calls"

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Mon, 15 August 2011 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=201764c72=tterriberry@mozilla.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 B2E1C21F8CA6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
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 hjMyGFkn1XvJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxip1i.isis.unc.edu (mxip1i.isis.unc.edu [152.2.0.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA1821F8C9D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAGxmSU6sGgRS/2dsb2JhbAA5CacwgV6BQAEBBAE4QQULCyElDwJGEwEHAodsuEmDJ4MgBIdfkDAPjAk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,374,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="204483600"
Received: from mr1a.isis.unc.edu (HELO smtp.unc.edu) ([172.26.4.82]) by mxip1o.isis.unc.edu with ESMTP; 15 Aug 2011 14:33:58 -0400
X-UNC-Auth-As: tterribe
X-UNC-Auth-IP: 71.65.212.77
Received: from [192.168.1.144] (cpe-071-065-212-077.nc.res.rr.com [71.65.212.77]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.unc.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7FIXvbn004014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:33:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4E496695.908@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:33:57 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101120 Gentoo/2.0.10 SeaMonkey/2.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBFwX9KiPDGwOZaANJuMO6J_wh06CPt+9+=y6iJL-hzXA@mail.gmail.com> <4E457915.7010809@skype.net> <CA+9kkMCP==SO8whDpfJ_BdHqvS=pg-iVXycfAqEJp+nZd=u1Pw@mail.gmail.com> <4E47B563.5000003@mozilla.com> <CA+9kkMBDsZr9DGUO-8-mdHU1DvwQbyeWdHRcbOvg7SG1mWRW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBDsZr9DGUO-8-mdHU1DvwQbyeWdHRcbOvg7SG1mWRW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] URIs for rtcweb "calls"
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, 15 Aug 2011 18:33:34 -0000

> For the case where you are setting up something closer to a
> web-chat-with-an-agent-for-the-ad-seen here, I think the amount of
> page context will be very small, and that it will be closer to the
> experience of the browser/app setting up its default widgets for this.

I think over time there will be a desire to include more and more page 
context in such things. But that aside, it becomes a lot less clear to 
me what kind of default widgets would be. For the simple case of 1 audio 
+ 1 video stream, things are reasonably straightforward, but once you 
start talking about local preview, multiple video streams, layout and 
audio panning for conferencing, negotiating new streams in the middle of 
a call, and all the other things which people have been considering in 
the use cases here, there's a fair bit of complexity that a "default" 
widget set has to handle, compared to, say, creating a default <video> 
tag to wrap an URL that points directly at a WebM file. Web site authors 
are likely to have a much easier time handling this complexity, as they 
understand the context of what they're providing and can make 
simplifying assumptions, and present things in a coherent way (tying 
identity to video windows, etc.), but a generic widget set doesn't have 
that luxury, unless we explicitly limit the scope of what it is required 
to support.