Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording use case

Dan York <dyork@voxeo.com> Tue, 23 August 2011 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dyork@voxeo.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 AD70E21F88B6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, 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 AvsLwUsQ0+U8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674FB21F883A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.65.247.87] (account dyork@voxeo.com HELO pc-00125.lodestar2.local) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTPSA id 93355396; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:37:49 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-11-795617699
From: Dan York <dyork@voxeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E53B33E.20508@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:37:46 -0400
Message-Id: <0373F256-76A8-4498-8699-34FC6813B2CB@voxeo.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDAE6A@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E526EEF.8080605@alum.mit.edu> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB07F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E53B33E.20508@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording use case
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: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:36:43 -0000

Comments inline...

On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> On 8/23/11 3:50 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
>>>  
>>> OTOH, maybe some of these cases are out of scope because the
>>> user+browser can't be sufficiently trusted, so that its
>>> necessary to do
>>> the recording from some secure server.
>> [JRE] I think there is a significant difference between local recording and remote recording. If there is a policy, say in a call centre, to record calls, the recording device is most likely going to be central, not local to the user's device. So I think for local recording it is largely up to the user whether to record or not. But yes, it could be that the application at least suggests recording.
> 
> I agree there is a significant difference between local and remote recording.
> 
> But in the RTCWEB context there are a number of alternatives for local recording.

DY>  I would also argue that there are any number of alternatives for local recording completely *outside* of what we are talking about for RTCWEB.   

DY> For instance, one the of the use cases *I* have personally for the RTCWEB work is to do audio (and potentially video) interviews with people and record them for various podcasts to which I contribute.  Typically I use Skype today for that, but I'd love an alternative where I could simply give someone a URL where they could go and click a button to connect to me and start the interview.  I can do this today, of course, using things like http://phono.com/ , but it does require the person calling me to use Flash, Java, etc. to do the connection from their browser to their audio devices.   I want to be free of all of that and just have it work in the browser.

DY> As I've been reading this whole thread on local/remote recording, I was thinking how I would use this in my use case... and the reality is that I probably *wouldn't* use it.  I already have additional software on my system that records my local computer audio and indeed can record my entire screen in a video format (which allows me to record video sessions).  I can then do all the relevant post-production I need to create the audio or video files I need.

DY> In fact, I have multiple solutions for local recording on my computer... some are commercial products I have purchased, some are open source.  Now true, they are not synced to an incoming call, so I would need to trigger them to initiate the recording, but they are available.

DY> All of this made me wonder if perhaps we are diving in a bit too deep here...  while it might be ideal for recording to be triggered in an RTCWEB connection, is that truly the vast majority of cases?  Or are we debating something that is more of an edge case?   In a call center environment, for instance, might the agents not already have other software installed on their computer that could be doing the local recording if required?

DY> I'm concerned in reading these threads that we are adding more and more layers of complexity which could get in the way of spurring widespread adoption.  (And yes, I do fully understand the counter-argument that if we don't think about this in advance we may not be able to add the functionality later.)

My 2 cents,
Dan

-- 
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Conversations
Voxeo Corporation   http://www.voxeo.com  dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-321-710-9193  skype: danyork  sip:dyork@voxeo.com

Join the Voxeo conversation:
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/voxeo  http://twitter.com/danyork
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/voxeo