Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft

Stefan Hakansson LK <> Mon, 30 April 2012 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCD321F85F2 for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OvP23R5us1CM for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9818221F85A5 for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7b18ae000000dce-90-4f9e7a7f14e1
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 07.E5.03534.F7A7E9F4; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:41:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:41:50 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:41:50 +0200
From: Stefan Hakansson LK <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:41:53 -0000

On 04/27/2012 06:43 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> Ted Hardie wrote:
>> The chairs would like to ask the working group to focus on the use
>> case draft.  If you have use cases that need to be added to the
>> document or text changes you'd like to suggest, please send them in
> I proposed the following use-case back in February, but there wasn't
> much discussion on actually adding it to the document:
> Let me know if the WG would like to proceed with something like this.

I think adding another small derivative of the simple video chat (this 
one with peer-to-peer file transfer added) makes a lot of sense. For 
one, we get a use case that requires reliable data (now we only have a 
req for "short latency datagram" which sound like unreliable to me); in 
addition we get a requirement for the data channel API to be able to use 
blobs (as defined in the File API W3C rec) as input/output.

A third good requirement that can be derived (if we want to) is the 
ability to prioritize data in relation to audio/video.

So, I think we should add it.


> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list