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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Thu, 15 September 2011 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8A021F84B1 for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.49
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SBL+qC4Mml7n for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2F221F84AF for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8FMJlEC009599; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:19:47 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:18:55 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 03:48:53 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed text - remote recording use case
Thread-Index: AcxzvYkgfUcWa7MUSWONOeb17M/tnQANdlrA
References: <> <> <> <><> <>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2011 22:18:55.0153 (UTC) FILETIME=[74DA0A10:01CC73F5]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed text - remote recording use case
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:17:07 -0000

Hi Harlad,

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

But in this usecase, The websocket towards recorder needs metadata which
is similar to SIPREC metadata
( and also, it
will have the impact on RTP model (RTP translator or mixer) of the
browser (
So, I'm thinking that it is inside the scope of RTCWeb. 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On
>Of Harald Alvestrand
>Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:08 PM
>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
>> or SRS" but not the original wordings.
>> At this moment, I'm not convinced whether SIPREC SRS will interop
>> RTCWeb browser because the signaling protocol is an open item in
>> 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.
>> let me know the reason why this approach may not be followed in
>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
>for RTCWEB.
>rtcweb mailing list