Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11

"Chenxin (Xin)" <> Tue, 24 September 2013 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782FB11E80F8 for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.28
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.720, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T4dRNdEN8RfH for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F84921F9FCE for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVU16841; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 02:15:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 03:13:49 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 03:14:31 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:14:27 +0800
From: "Chenxin (Xin)" <>
To: Karl Stahl <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
Thread-Index: AQHOtl/hYQwJQvwb8keiBCP8AmFFOZnUHYEw
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 02:14:26 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <07a601ceb64e$5caaba00$16002e00$> <07b001ceb65f$ce3f0cf0$6abd26d0$>
In-Reply-To: <07b001ceb65f$ce3f0cf0$6abd26d0$>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 02:15:16 -0000

Hi Karl, 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf Of
>Karl Stahl
>Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:16 AM
>Subject: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
>While reading the draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11, here are
>a few "telephony related" WebRTC things I think should be clarified in the
>use cases.
>3.2.1.  Simple Video Communication Service
>  Description
>The invited user might accept or reject the session.
>[Suggest adding] The invited user might accept only audio, rejecting video
>(even if a camera is enabled). A user may also select to initiate an audio
>session, without video.
>And in API requirements:
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------
>   A1      The Web API must provide means for the application to ask the
>browser for permission to use cameras and microphones, individually as input
>devices. (One must be able to answer with voice only - declining video.)
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------

>Same under
>6.2.  Browser Considerations
>The browser is expected to provide mechanisms for users to revise and even
>completely revoke consent to use device resources such as camera and
>microphone. [Suggest adding] Specifically, a user must be given the
>opportunity to only accept audio in a video call invitation.
[Xin] it is a common use case to accept only audio call and reject the video and quite useful. But I am doubt that this function should be mixed with video or audio device access permission . Do I misunderstand your proposal?  I think we could just disable the video stream when signaling. So we could make video call with one and reject it with other in the same web-service. I think the audio and video device access permission is not for each call(peer connection).