Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Thu, 25 August 2011 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=211e52c49=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 A8A6A21F8C1D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.323, 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 1heVshW5XQ62 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxip2i.isis.unc.edu (mxip2i.isis.unc.edu [152.2.2.193]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D038221F8C19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAFqYVk6sGgRS/2dsb2JhbABDpyKBWIFAAQEEAThAAQULCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFEwEHAoduBLoyhkwEh2GQNg+MDg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,429,1309752000"; d="scan'208";a="172521017"
Received: from mr1a.isis.unc.edu (HELO smtp.unc.edu) ([172.26.4.82]) by mxip2o.isis.unc.edu with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2011 14:50:45 -0400
X-UNC-Auth-As: tterribe
X-UNC-Auth-IP: 63.245.220.240
Received: from [10.250.5.61] (corp-240.mv.mozilla.com [63.245.220.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.unc.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7PIoheL019307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:50:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4E569983.8060409@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:50:43 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110604 Gentoo/2.0.14 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <89177AB2-F721-47E4-8471-2180EDA10615@voxeo.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB34D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <496EE152-41F2-49AB-A136-05735FE5A9F9@voxeo.com> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E54AB9B.9090600@jesup.org> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB534@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6DF6@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E554BCE.2040403@alum.mit.edu> <4E56399E.2020902@alvestrand.no> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B011C8D3B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E5682DD.5020204@skype.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E5682DD.5020204@skype.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:49:34 -0000

Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> But this is a bad idea. Providing APIs that let a browser send audio
> that is being received from the other end to a third party open several
> different cans of worms simultaneously. One is that there's now another

The currently proposed MediaStream Processing API 
(http://hg.mozilla.org/users/rocallahan_mozilla.com/specs/raw-file/tip/StreamProcessing/StreamProcessing.html) 
essentially allows exactly this (including mixing). It doesn't make any 
distinction about whether the source of a MediaStream is a local camera, 
a <video> tag, or a remote stream from a PeerConnection object. So if 
you want to prevent this kind of thing, you need to have an active 
method of doing so, because by default the API will allow it.

> Not to mention all the protocol-level implications of being an RTP
> mixer, if we're trying to stay true to that particular choice of protocols.

That's a good point, and it's important to think about what the 
implications of those are, especially for a ProcessedMediaStream. This 
is not something I, personally, have thought all the way through yet.