Re: [rtcweb] Query regarding rtcweb use cases and requirements.

Antony Meyn <> Thu, 29 March 2012 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFC521F8A2C for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kDgAuxzHgyGp for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A30721F8A2B for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbds11 with SMTP id ds11so43505wgb.1 for <>; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AC4hbu6nK2j9Y+kIbBTRKDLumXej2sl5XZuSIE1YksY=; b=m3pKyNC/NsxgddxPXPCtgAcW5FBeFcz9JfqrSaV16IrEYxrMh+4kniBkh6t7wKahiv LCI0I4qlcd0hAyPDUtQkYOljqrXUA4FvbA9MyxgSA0cB3ASmNW5Y0m6xLZBHFXLJj5YI UcmS4L/HLyHkWnEa4LYhi071xYwZp25FykaiZTzLaJg46LG8ad1lo1ZZ5qsYFp4Lrpxu BQsXPVZ241YHHCdQrRLEiKVMQQOecEBzIdKQiB1NP0mLL7DtesRal7XkF1pPda/hKlMG OOOaZsDFTt6R04HouqAo+d8ZSjD4OYf5hSaaeD1M5LkJEiZhpy3B6YfFn3AZnIv+wDEm KxMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id f5mr4969694wiz.18.1333022738128; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <FA86515700364A16B4EDF69E88E3FA1A@devbox> <>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:05:37 +0300
Message-ID: <>
From: Antony Meyn <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043bde66c8a18e04bc608a47"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query regarding rtcweb use cases and requirements.
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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:05:40 -0000

@Herald: thanks.

>>For communications that did not need low latency, the WG felt that the
RTCWEB requirements were not different from the requirements of any other
application, so those could be fulfilled with other types of interfaces,
including server-mediated file transfers.

What about use cases of static(non-live) video streaming from browser to
browser, this would require low latency and servers-mediated file transfers
would only add up to the latency, right?. A user would like to share his
video without actually having to upload the content to a server.

>> The purpose of the "use cases and requirements" is to find a minimum set
of things that the protocol suite has to be able to do in order to be "good
enough", not to delineate everything the protocol can be used for.

Agree, but the use cases for the data API, does look promising, and it
didn't seem to have much attention in comparison to live video streaming
use cases.