Re: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 22 August 2011 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 73D5821F8862 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 J0oP89pvVz4l for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E5221F87D6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6CD39E072; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:08:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AYjdjpPPR6Y8; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:08:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8742B39E0D4; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:08:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E526327.7050807@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:09:43 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
References: <BBF498F2D030E84AB1179E24D1AC41D616C389F16D@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se><4E3AB4D4.4070308@jesup.org>, <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA09BDB6A238@MCHP058A.global-ad.net><BBF498F2D030E84AB1179E24D1AC41D616C389F242@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se>, <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA09BDB6A34F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net><BBF498F2D030E84AB1179E24D1AC41D616C389F245@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se>, <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA09BDB6A397@MCHP058A.global-ad.net><BBF498F2D030E84AB1179E24D1AC41D616C389F24A@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510640D0@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDABAD@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51064106@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09801F1550D@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51064117@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E523B4B.4070905@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E523B4B.4070905@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.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 14:08:40 -0000

On 08/22/11 13:19, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> On 2011-08-22 10:16, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>
>> ... Currently, let us have common understanding whether recording 
>> usecase has to be added in RTCWeb or not.
> Agree. And also _which_ recording use case(s) in that case. I think 
> this is what John was looking for when starting the thread.
>
> My $0.02 says that we need to take some care before adding more and 
> more usages and reqs - after all the schedules for the WGs are quite 
> aggressive.
Indeed. When thinking about the recording use cases, I could come up 
with a few interpretations:

- Record one media stream, as it arrives (the "voice mailbox" concept)
- Record a conversation: Outgoing and incoming audio and video in an 
1-on-1 or 1-on-N context (typically as permanent records of a meeting or 
conversation)
- Record the application screen as presented to the user, together with 
the audio tracks as presented to the user's audio device, but don't 
bother with incoming audio from the user at all (game recording, for 
instance - the "WoW movie" kind)

In each instance, recording technology might include recording:

   - As one track, somehow mixed, ready for playback
   - As multiple tracks recorded separately within a container that 
requires special playback devices
   - As multiple tracks, recorded separately to separate objects
   - As streams sent to some remote recording entity, that may choose 
one of the options above

I'd be happier about discussing which ones of these people find it 
critical to support before we dive into figuring out how to support them.

Send text!

                       Harald