[rtcweb] WG last call comments on use-case and requirement document, “Real-time text”

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Mon, 29 April 2013 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 7180021F9DB9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 4bruvmHZE0G0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79ED421F9D80 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f366d000004d10-ca-517e7d651733
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 09.3B.19728.56D7E715; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:02:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [150.132.141.119] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:02:13 +0200
Message-ID: <517E7D65.7020805@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:02:13 +0200
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW5qbV2gwcUp2hZr/7WzOzB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY0HDR7aC+fwVO2acZ2lg/MjTxcjJISFgIrHq31kmCFtM4sK9 9WxdjFwcQgKnGCW2v25mhHDWMkpceLmZuYuRg4NXQFviy4JkkAYWAVWJK7eOsIOE2QSCJWZM MQIJiwpESfx7u5sRxOYVEJQ4OfMJC4gtIqAucfnhBXaQkcICLYwSf3b9AutlFrCXeLC1DKSG WUBeonnrbGYQW0hAV+Ld63usExj5ZiEZNQuhYxaSjgWMzKsY2XMTM3PSy402MQJD5uCW36o7 GO+cEznEKM3BoiTOO0OqMlBIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+qDQntfgQIxMHp1QDo5XficQvpysT3Kal zZvvOlXl2UQeBn6hmLvZP+PWTbGatVhoS9V6qSsxwVqbbRisTinNvxe466C5zaczMa0PmPme vtuZktGW+FFmxoSpU/Z4dTPN8SrqyFDxiU9V4Hpy5F3binuSc+I68/OtPkTsurT5Ep/CvojN x+JkRRc2C5vP2y3ULLLVQImlOCPRUIu5qDgRACiC89nnAQAA
Subject: [rtcweb] =?windows-1252?q?WG_last_call_comments_on_use-case_and_r?= =?windows-1252?q?equirement_document=2C_=93Real-time_text=94?=
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: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:02:15 -0000

This relates to the comments to the WG last call of the use-cases and 
requirements document [1].

The topic in this mail is Real-time text. This was discussed in [2] - 
[8] (i hope I found all the relevant mails, please correct me if I 
missed any).

My reading of the discussion is that although there was some interest in 
the use-case it was shown that it can be implemented on top of the 
existing WebRTC environment and thus does not necessary drive any new 
requirements. The counter argument was the need for common
interoperability for real-time text rather than silos, especially in the 
context of emergency services. However as there no consensus on any 
special requirements regarding emergency services it doesn't appear that 
real-time text support requires that either.

This can be summarized to that there was no consensus for additional 
requirements and the basic functionality can clearly be implemented 
using JS and suitable data transport,, and there is no need to add a 
specific use-case for real-time text.

Another way to view this is that the real-time text use-case is a 
"telephony terminal" use-case with the codec being something like T.140, 
which would narrow the discussion to a codec discussion.

Anyway, with the current input I don’t think there is support to add a 
new use-case on “Real-time text”.

Stefan


[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06136.html

[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06160.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06161.html
[4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06202.html
[5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06212.html
[6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06213.html
[7] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06224.html
[8] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06228.html