Re: [rtcweb] Text communication in RTCWEB sessions

[Randell Jesup <[e-mail]>]

On 11/12/2012 2:51 PM, Igor Faynberg wrote:
> Thanks for a quick reply!  (Meanwhile, I was assured by Keith Drage 
> that this feature is needed by deaf--something I  was not aware of, so 
> I need to catch up on learning.  I imagine this would be used in 
> speech-to-text conversion and transmission.)
>
> Of course, thanks to my advanced age, I remember the Unix "Write" 
> application that did just that.  My bad experience with it was that 22 
> years ago I used that very application to communicate with my big 
> boss, and I wrote  something without counting to 1,000.  I should have 
> counted:  The backspaces did not help...

Write(1) is one-way, talk(1) is two-way, but with real-time view of 
typing like Write.

On 11/12/2012 2:48 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> Yes, but is that a requirement on us, or on the people who roll out
> services using webRTC?  If RTT can be done via a bunch of (potentially
> ugly) JS code and the data channel,  then it's the service providers'
> problem to write that ugly JS code.  There's no requirement for the
> W3C/IETF to provide native support for RTT as long as it's possible to
> implement it on top of our standards.
>
> - Jim
> P.S.  I intend this as an argument for looking at RTT later, not for
> skipping it altogether.

I agree with Jim here - we-the-rtcweb-working-group do not have to spec 
out the solution to a specific country's legislative VRS/text 
requirements here, but should provide a mechanism for someone providing 
a service using these protocols to comply with (most) of those standards 
around the world.  We can't follow all such legal requirements, as they 
are myriad and ever-changing, which is why good, generic transports and 
programmability are an excellent answer to the issue, especially as a 
start, and encourage people building responses to those requirements to 
do so in a standard way (preferably through a standards body, even an 
appropriate IETF working group).

For example, the current VRS spec requires implementation of H.323 and 
ENUM... (and H.263 for video).

I'll note that other country-specific telecom-regulation-requirements 
fall into this bucket as well, which I have no wish to bake into the 
core spec.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Richard Shockey
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 2:41 PM
> To: 'Dale R. Worley'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Text communication in RTCWEB sessions
>
>
> Dale is right ..you can delay the discussion but not the requirement.
> The regulators will insist on this.
>
> http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/cvaa.html
>
> http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/legislative_f
> rame
> work/l24216a_en.htm
>

-- 
Randell Jesup
[e-mail]