Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording use case
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 23 August 2011 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 6117A21F8B5F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6]
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 J3Gzgq0rH4vU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8020821F8B3E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.76]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Ppxo1h0051ei1Bg57q42H0; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:04:02 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([24.62.109.41]) by omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Pq3p1h00X0tdiYw3kq3tT3; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:03:54 +0000
Message-ID: <4E53B33E.20508@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:03:42 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDAE6A@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E526EEF.8080605@alum.mit.edu> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB07F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB07F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording use case
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: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:02:55 -0000
On 8/23/11 3:50 AM, Elwell, John wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat >> Sent: 22 August 2011 16:00 >> To: rtcweb@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording use case >> >> This is a good start. But I'd like to dig a little deeper into the >> intent here. >> >> The below says the *user* wishes to record, and the *browser* must be >> able to do it. But is that the only case of interest? >> >> ISTM that in a number of cases it will be the web application >> that wants >> the recording, even if there is an obligation to inform the >> user that it >> is happening. And the behavior of the application may be changed >> substantially if the recording cannot be made. >> >> (Consider a web app provided by a brokerage to its clients.) >> >> OTOH, maybe some of these cases are out of scope because the >> user+browser can't be sufficiently trusted, so that its >> necessary to do >> the recording from some secure server. > [JRE] I think there is a significant difference between local recording and remote recording. If there is a policy, say in a call centre, to record calls, the recording device is most likely going to be central, not local to the user's device. So I think for local recording it is largely up to the user whether to record or not. But yes, it could be that the application at least suggests recording. I agree there is a significant difference between local and remote recording. But in the RTCWEB context there are a number of alternatives for local recording. Specifically, how is the decision made to record locally? - the user could have configured the browser to unconditionally record every media stream, without regard to what the JavaScript has to say about it. This might be an important policy choice if you don't trust what the web sites do - the JS downloaded from a web server may come with instructions to make a local recording. - the JS downloaded from a web server may contain code that checks local policy in the browser and/or queries the user, to decide whether to make a local recording In the latter two of the above the decision to record or not rests with the web server. In the first case it does not. The first case also requires a different sort of implementation in the browser - it must be hooked into the stream processing machinery at a lower level. I think its necessary to decide whether the first case needs to be supported. Its tricky, because recording everything is probably excessive, yet I'm not sure I'm ready to trust that all the web servers I want to use will do the right thing. Is there a middle ground? Thanks, Paul > John > > > John Elwell > Tel: +44 1908 817801 (office and mobile) > Email: john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com > http://www.siemens-enterprise.com/uk/ > > Siemens Enterprise Communications Limited. > Registered office: Brickhill Street, Willen Lake, Milton Keynes, MK15 0DJ. > Registered No: 5903714, England. > > Siemens Enterprise Communications Limited is a Trademark Licensee of Siemens AG. >
- [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording use ca… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording us… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording us… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording us… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording us… Dan York
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording us… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording us… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording us… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text for local recording us… Elwell, John