Re: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Mon, 22 August 2011 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 F3BAC21F8B1A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 02:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.295
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.696, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 JTgsdgk0yKvq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 02:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E3121F8B13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 02:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP063A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.61]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id E017623F0464; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:25:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.55]) by MCHP063A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.61]) with mapi; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:25:41 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:25:40 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail
Thread-Index: AcxfUMTfEVJBuTF0R9mTlWEWeaGpTgBW0F+A
Message-ID: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF636D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
References: <BBF498F2D030E84AB1179E24D1AC41D616C389F16D@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se> <4E3AB4D4.4070308@jesup.org>, <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA09BDB6A238@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <BBF498F2D030E84AB1179E24D1AC41D616C389F242@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se> <4E4EDAEA.60901@jesup.org> <4E4EF723.5090409@alum.mit.edu> <4E4FD78C.8060608@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4E4FD78C.8060608@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail
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, 22 Aug 2011 09:24:39 -0000

> 
> RTCWEB doesn't seem to going in the direction of mandating SIP, but
> still, I would think that it is reasonable to say something along the
> lines of "the remote recording case is handled by connecting to a
> SIPREC-capable recorder" (with the usual degree of gatewaying help from
> our signaling proxies).
> 
[AndyH] - I agree this would just seem to be another example of how the Session Recording Client can be decomposed and is similar to Figure 4 in the SIPREC architecture draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-siprec-architecture-02#section-3.1.2) but in the case of RTCWEB the media server is the browser and the application is the web server and of course RTCWEB will not use mediactrl. I have been resisting attempts to add more diagrams to the SIPREC architecture draft to show the multitude of ways the SRC and SRS could be decomposed but maybe RTCWEB is a good reason to do this.


> That will, of course, require that the SIPREC recorder is capable of
> participiating in an RTCWEB session (that is, support ICE and the
> mandatory codecs), that the RTCWEB implementation be capable of copying
> incoming media streams to an outgoing interface, and that negotiation
> can down-negotiate to something that is supported by both call
> participants and the recording device. Does SIPREC envision
> establishing
> minimum requirements for codec's and profiles?

[AndyH] - No the SIPREC requirements (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6341) don't include minimum codec requirements.

> 
> Once we can satisfy ourselves that we have all the pieces required to
> send media off to a remote API, we should see if we can do something
> very similar for sending media off to some kind of local recorder; it
> seems less likely that we'll get into trouble with locking ourselves
> into a wrong model if we do things in that order.
> 
> My $0.02.
> 
>                Harald
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb