- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:09:43 +0200
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- CC: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>, "Avasarala, Ranjit" <Ranjit.Avasarala@Polycom.com>, "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 08/22/11 13:19, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> 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.
Indeed. When thinking about the recording use cases, I could come up
with a few interpretations:
- Record one media stream, as it arrives (the "voice mailbox" concept)
- Record a conversation: Outgoing and incoming audio and video in an
1-on-1 or 1-on-N context (typically as permanent records of a meeting or
conversation)
- Record the application screen as presented to the user, together with
the audio tracks as presented to the user's audio device, but don't
bother with incoming audio from the user at all (game recording, for
instance - the "WoW movie" kind)
In each instance, recording technology might include recording:
- As one track, somehow mixed, ready for playback
- As multiple tracks recorded separately within a container that
requires special playback devices
- As multiple tracks, recorded separately to separate objects
- As streams sent to some remote recording entity, that may choose
one of the options above
I'd be happier about discussing which ones of these people find it
critical to support before we dive into figuring out how to support them.
Send text!
Harald
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 14:10:12 UTC