Re: [rtcweb] Usecases for innovation.

Tim Panton <> Wed, 09 November 2011 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA62C21F8B2A for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:24:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.565
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSQHN5AGFHT1 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71BCE21F8AFA for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C18F37A902; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:36:59 +0000 (GMT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Tim Panton <>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W6072C34EB0609E293E49FC93DF0@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:24:08 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>, <> <BLU152-W6072C34EB0609E293E49FC93DF0@phx.gbl>
To: Bernard Aboba <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usecases for innovation.
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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:24:20 -0000

On 9 Nov 2011, at 01:05, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> [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? 

Well, in some sense kinect is just a lossy video encoder. So you could argue that they are the same problem.
Both cases point out the fact that tying codecs/networking/negotiation into one object and
only presenting a (somewhat opaque) blob of SDP to represent them limits what we can do 
at the javascript end. 
That may be a limitation we can live with, but at least we need to acknowledge that it is a limitation.

> Tim said:
> " 1) H264 implementation in Javascript 
> 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 compatible
> with last century's deskphones I don't imagine it will)."