Re: [rtcweb] New usecase & requirement for media forking in browser

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 11/03/2011 12:56 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
> Harald,
>
> Please read inline.
>
> Thanks
> Partha
>>> 2) Remote Recording: The call is forked towards remote peer as well as
>> recording server. This usecase is already covered in usecase document
>> Again, this does not need forking. The client creating 2 connections is
>> the one deciding to do so.
> <partha>  I'll take this usecase because it is very common usecase. Client (browser) is not required to create two connection in this scenario if recording request is going as metadata and WebRTC Server forks the request to remote peer and recorder. Please note that client is not required to know the recorder destination till get the answer.</partha>
Partha,

thanks for the details. What do you base your assertion that this is a 
"very common usecase" on?
(In previous discussions on recording, when people argued for a solution 
with media relaying in the client, people have variously argued that 
this should not be supported at all.)

In the scenario you sketch, the recording device will also fail to 
capture media from the destination, so I assume that the scenario you 
suggest is just part of the scenaroi.