Re: [rtcweb] 答复: Use-case draft updated

On 06/29/2012 03:31 AM, 邓灵莉/denglingli wrote:
> Hi, Stefan
>
> Have the group ever considered adding use-cases for on-line presence
> notification for subscribed friends or user-defined groups?
> They are basic features of RTC services today I believe, and surely would
> promote users' on-line communication practice.

Hi Lingli,

what has been discussed is to add a use-case where _identity_ handling 
of peers communicating is important (e.g. allow the browser, without 
involvement of the application, to verify the identity of the peer using 
an Identity Provider).

I don't think adding on-line presence, notification, group handling has 
been discussed for addition to the document- I agree fully that these 
are important features of RTC services, but the reasoning (this is my 
personal understanding - others may disagree) has been that exactly 
these features are already supported by numerous services (I won't name 
them here, but you know what I'm thinking of) that use the browser as 
client environment (at least for desktop). So this seems like a problem 
solved, what is not yet solved (and what this group is addressing) is 
peer-to-peer audiovisual (and data) communication (without plug-ins).

Br,
Stefan

>
> BR
> Lingli
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Stefan
> Hakansson LK
> 发送时间: 2012年6月27日 20:43
> 收件人: rtcweb@ietf.org
> 主题: [rtcweb] Use-case draft updated
>
> Hi,
>
> as already automatically announced, the use-case draft has been updated.
> Extract from the change log:
>
> * Changed "eavesdropping" to "wiretapping" and referenced RFC2804.
>
> * Removed informal ref webrtc_req; that document has been abandoned by the
> W3C webrtc WG.
>
> * Added use-case where one user is behind a FW that only allows http;
> derived req. F37.
> 					
> * Changed F24 slightly; MUST-> SHOULD, inserted "available".
> 					
> * Added a clause to "Simple video communication service" saying that the
> service provider monitors the quality of service, and derived reqs F38 and
> A26.
>
> Most of the above are things that was documented in the minutes of the
> Interim June 12th; I took the liberty to add some text (and reqs
> A26/F38) on the service provider monitoring the QoE.
>
> Feedback and comments are most welcome.
>
> Also, Ekr has the task to deliver an Identity related use-case (as discussed
> at the interim).
>
> Stefan
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 7246 (20120625) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>