Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text - remote recording use case

["Ravindran Parthasarathi" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Harlad,

I agree with you in case it is just two socket from JS (app
environment). 

But in this usecase, The websocket towards recorder needs metadata which
is similar to SIPREC metadata
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-04) and also, it
will have the impact on RTP model (RTP translator or mixer) of the
browser (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-eckel-siprec-rtp-rec-01.txt).
So, I'm thinking that it is inside the scope of RTCWeb. 

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf
>Of Harald Alvestrand
>Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:08 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text - remote recording use case
>
>On 09/14/11 07:57, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> I'm fine with Hadriel proposal of "remote peer" instead "remote
>browser
>> or SRS" but not the original wordings.
>>
>> At this moment, I'm not convinced whether SIPREC SRS will interop
with
>> RTCWeb browser because the signaling protocol is an open item in
>RTCWeb.
>> The recording could be done by two websocket from browser wherein one
>> websocket towards webserver and other towards recorder. How these
>> entities interact with each other has to be discussed&  defined.
>Please
>> let me know the reason why this approach may not be followed in
>RTCWeb.
>My opinion:
>
>If this can be built in JS using the APIs and protocols defined by
>RTCWEB/WEBRTC, there is no need for anything more within these groups.
>
>If it cannot be built using these APIs and protocols, we need to
>consider whether these APIs and protocols need to be extended in order
>to cover this use case.
>
>The detailed building of the application is, in my opinion, out of
scope
>for RTCWEB.
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb