Re: Use-case: Auditing

On 07/17/2013 07:32 PM, cowwoc wrote:
> Harald,
>
> On 17/07/2013 7:28 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Thus, if your automated peer implements the protocols but not the 
>> APIs, it can do anything it wants with the incoming packets.
>>
>> Were you looking for a browser-based recorder or for a 
>> non-browser-based recorder?
>
>     I understand, but as mentioned in the previous thread I believe 
> there is a strong demand for headless (server) peers. I don't think it 
> is realistic (or beneficial) for the specification to ask every server 
> vendor to start parsing the signaling layer. By exposing Object APIs 
> for these use-cases we enable future specifications to modify 
> implementation details without applications out in the wild.
>
>     We need to differentiate between Implementers and Application 
> Developers. The latter should never have to interact with 
> implementation details because then future changes will break their 
> applications.

I think we agree on where we want to be at, but it feels like we're 
talking past each other.

Are you talking about a headless entity that implements the WebRTC 
Javascript API (and presumably enough of other HTML specifications to 
run applications served by webservers, as if it was a browser?
That's what I was calling a "browser-based recorder" up above.

Non-browser-based devices have to parse signalling on their own. They 
don't have Javascript APIs.

Received on Thursday, 18 July 2013 07:45:52 UTC