Re: [rtcweb] Query regarding rtcweb use cases and requirements.

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Mon, 02 April 2012 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.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 538C021F8910 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 O+gdBK9FjM+F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F6C21F879E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 03:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7b76ae0000063d8-7c-4f79859e23ec
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 20.2F.25560.E95897F4; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:55:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:55:26 +0200
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4552323 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:55:26 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40415526CE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:55:26 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from n106.nomadiclab.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF0C4FE35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:55:25 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4F79859D.1050208@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:55:25 +0300
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <FA86515700364A16B4EDF69E88E3FA1A@devbox> <4F71982B.4010208@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4F71982B.4010208@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090800020007060104070806"
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query regarding rtcweb use cases and requirements.
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, 02 Apr 2012 10:55:29 -0000

at moment the requirements/use case for Data are in the following draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-00


/Salvatore


On 3/27/12 1:36 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 03/27/2012 09:51 AM, ajrmeyn@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>>   
>> This is with regards to the following document:
>> Web Real-Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-06.txt
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements/?include_text=1
>> I have noticed that the use cases with regards to Data API of web 
>> real time communication, have not been addressed. For example: use 
>> cases that are related to file sharing between browsers.
>> is there any particular reason for the same?
> Requirement F23 is a data-passing requirement.
>
> For communications that did not need low latency, the WG felt that the 
> RTCWEB requirements were not different from the requirements of any 
> other application, so those could be fulfilled with other types of 
> interfaces, including server-mediated file transfers.
>
> The WG is suggesting data API/protocol solutions that can be used for 
> other things than fulfiling the most narrow interpretation of the 
> requirement listed, but did not feel a need to add a requirement 
> covering those.
>
> The purpose of the "use cases and requirements" is to find a minimum 
> set of things that the protocol suite has to be able to do in order to 
> be "good enough", not to delineate everything the protocol can be used 
> for.
>
> My interpretation....
>
>                       Harald
>
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Antony Meyn
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>


-- 
Salvatore Loreto, PhD
www.sloreto.com