Re: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> · Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:19:39 +0200

On 2011-08-22 10:16, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:

> ... Currently, let us have common understanding whether recording usecase has to be added in RTCWeb or not.
Agree. And also _which_ recording use case(s) in that case. I think this 
is what John was looking for when starting the thread.

My $0.02 says that we need to take some care before adding more and more 
usages and reqs - after all the schedules for the WGs are quite aggressive.
>
> Thanks
> Partha
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avasarala, Ranjit [mailto:Ranjit.Avasarala@Polycom.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 12:22 PM
>> To: Ravindran Parthasarathi; Elwell, John; Stefan Håkansson LK;
>> rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> We could use websockets protocol to pass metadata information.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ranjit
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Ravindran Parthasarathi
>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 12:12 PM
>> To: Elwell, John; Stefan Håkansson LK; rtcweb@ietf.org; public-
>> webrtc@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail
>>
>> John,
>>
>> I agree with you. JavaScript API should have the provision to pass the
>> metadata.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Partha
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Elwell, John [mailto:john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 11:59 AM
>>> To: Ravindran Parthasarathi; Stefan Håkansson LK; rtcweb@ietf.org;
>>> public-webrtc@w3.org
>>> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail
>>>
>>> Partha,
>>>
>>> You are talking here about the metadata, I think. I assume the web page
>>> / JavaScript has to deal with that - not the browser.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ravindran Parthasarathi [mailto:pravindran@sonusnet.com]
>>>> Sent: 19 August 2011 18:19
>>>> To: Stefan Håkansson LK; Elwell, John; rtcweb@ietf.org;
>>>> public-webrtc@w3.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail
>>>>
>>>> Stefan,
>>>>
>>>> In case recording similar to SIPREC, it is little bit more
>>>> than spanning two media (RTP stream) alone because recording
>>>> has to include some context data about recording apart from
>>>> the media stream.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Partha
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Stefan Håkansson LK
>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 8:26 PM
>>>>> To: Elwell, John; rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use cases - recording and voicemail
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I did suggest (in other text in my previous
>>>> message) that one
>>>>> possible solution might be to record locally and use a
>>>> second RTC-Web
>>>>> session to transmit from the local file to the>remote
>>>> recorder. What I
>>>>> failed to say was that in this case the local file would be
>>>> a temporary
>>>>> repository - just a buffer between the two sessions.
>>>>> This makes sense. Also, if you look at the API proposals
>>>> available, it
>>>>> would be quite easy to forward (in real time) a stream
>>>> being received
>>>>> to another entity. There is no explicit recording, a stream being
>>>>> received (via RTP) is just streamed to another entity (via
>>>> a separate
>>>>> RTC-Web session). I think this would solve this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb