Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text - remote recording use case

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 09/14/11 07:57, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
> John,
>
> I'm fine with Hadriel proposal of "remote peer" instead "remote browser
> or SRS" but not the original wordings.
>
> At this moment, I'm not convinced whether SIPREC SRS will interop with
> RTCWeb browser because the signaling protocol is an open item in RTCWeb.
> The recording could be done by two websocket from browser wherein one
> websocket towards webserver and other towards recorder. How these
> entities interact with each other has to be discussed&  defined. Please
> let me know the reason why this approach may not be followed in RTCWeb.
My opinion:

If this can be built in JS using the APIs and protocols defined by 
RTCWEB/WEBRTC, there is no need for anything more within these groups.

If it cannot be built using these APIs and protocols, we need to 
consider whether these APIs and protocols need to be extended in order 
to cover this use case.

The detailed building of the application is, in my opinion, out of scope 
for RTCWEB.