Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

Randell, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Randell Jesup
> Sent: 24 August 2011 08:43
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Remote recording - RTC-Web client 
> acting as SIPREC session recording client
> 
> On 8/23/2011 1:50 PM, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >   
> > Also agree that implementing a full SIP Session Recording 
> Client (SRC) as defined ]
> > by the SIPREC WG in to the browser would be a tall order 
> and would open the flood
> > gates for a lot of other requests for SIP functionality in 
> the browser.
> 
> Agreed
> 
> > If however SIP is not in the browser then I think it is a 
> useful and interesting test case
> > to look at whether we could build a decomposed SRC with the 
> browser handling the
> > media and the web server handling the signalling. What I 
> heard a number of times at
> > IETF81 is that what people want is to build innovative new 
> applications with a real time
> > media enabled browser and to it seems clear to me we need a 
> browser API which is
> > flexible and enables applications to do clever things with 
> media streams. So exploring
> > some use cases which require the browser to duplicate and 
> copy media streams is a good idea.
> >   
> > Therefore I think we should keep explore the remote 
> recording use case further.
> 
> My personal (not Mozilla's) opinion is that SIPREC-style recording is 
> out-of-scope,
> and would be handled in this context by a webrtc-B2BUA (i.e. 
> something 
> that sits on the
> signalling and media paths), or something that interacts 
> directly with 
> the app.
> 
> What I do want to consider for in-scope are local recording options.  
> This can cover the "local
> answering machine" case, but also "I want to record my call 
> with Dad", 
> "I want to record
> my team's chatter in the game", "I want to interview someone for 
> genealogy research", etc, etc.
> Yes, these can be done (poorly) by using some external app to capture 
> the screen and
> speaker/mic audio - I don't consider that a replacement for 
> local recording.
> 
> Local recording is far less problematical protocol-wise than 
> SIPREC, and 
> doesn't require
> mandating SIP.
[JRE] I am not advocating supporting SIP in the browser just for the purpose of supporting SIPREC SRC functionality. What I am saying is that if the browser is concerned only with media aspects, then only the media aspects of SRC functionality need to be considered in the browser (e.g., copying the media streams). On the other hand, if, for other reasons, SIP is implemented in the browser, it would require additional enhancements to support SIP aspects of SIPREC SRC functionality.

John

John Elwell
Tel: [phone] (office and mobile)
Email: [e-mail]
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.


> 
> -- 
> Randell Jesup
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>