Re: [rtcweb] Usecases for innovation.

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 09 November 2011 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 E69BB1F0C45 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:05:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.262, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, 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 C9ARY8LmoJE4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:05:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.112]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B30E1F0C3B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:05:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU152-W60 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:05:17 -0800
Message-ID: <BLU152-W6072C34EB0609E293E49FC93DF0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_db859661-c3ec-499a-8004-33b968545c86_"
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.94]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:05:17 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <6CB98137-B2A4-488C-BF5C-D7D87B23C7EC@cisco.com>
References: <084BA945-E5AB-480D-8608-1340E8C8125F@phonefromhere.com>, <6CB98137-B2A4-488C-BF5C-D7D87B23C7EC@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2011 01:05:17.0344 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5020200:01CC9E7B]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usecases for innovation.
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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:05:22 -0000

[BA]  I'm trying to understand the "generic" issues presented by these cases.   For #1, is the generic issue the ability to add support for codecs not supported natively (e.g. ability to add and use a codec added by a plugin, for example)?   For #2, is the generic issue the ability to add support for new types of devices without standardized APIs, or is the issue being able to represent the input/output of a non-standard device in terms of a media stream?     Tim said: " 1) H264 implementation in Javascript http://yfrog.com/nmng0z 
2) Kinect as an input device for a virtual receptionist in a real reception area
 	(Voxeo's as it happens).
 
 Neither of these are production ready - or indeed necessarily a good idea,but the fact that neither (minor) innovation fits at all into our brand new framework
should give us pause for thought. (but given the pell-mell dash to be compatiblewith last century's deskphones I don't imagine it will)."