- From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:42:52 +0200
- To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- CC: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Koen Vos <koen.vos@skype.net>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2011-07-20 15.48, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: > >On Jul 20, 2011, at 3:39 , Göran Eriksson AP wrote: > >> >> >> On 2011-07-18 20.13, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> As a side note, I hate the label voip / audio. They are not the right >>> labels for what we are talking about. This is all voip and it is all >>> audio. But ignoring the labels... >>> >>> Let me bring up another use case. E911 calls need to be handled more or >>> less like music instead of speech. For example you turn of voice >>>activity >>> detection, noise suppression and gating for E911 calls. This allows >>>PSAP >>> operator to hear the background noise and decide things like if they >>>need >>> to delay the paramedics knocking on the door until after the police >>> arrive. (where I live average response time of police is far worse than >>> average response time of ambulance so this decision impacts lives). >>> >>> I'm arguing the JS app, which is the only thing that knows if this call >>> was being used for that type of purpose, should support a hint along >>>the >>> lines of this. I'm not saying the browsers should have to pay attention >>> to this hint - some will use it, some will ignore it, but I want one >>>hint >>> that all apps can use and not have to write separate code for each >>> browser. >> >> But are e911 requirements (and other telco like service/features that >>come >> from regulatory requirements) those we should prioritize in the first >> phase of >> webRTC? There are lot's of such requirements (especially if we go down >>to >> national level).. >> >> Given the challenges in bringing RTC to the browser, perhaps we should >> take the e911 like use cases in subsequent phases, when the community >>have >> gathered some more experience having solved the "basic" stuff? >> >> > >Just to be clear, I was not suggesting we do this because it was a >regulatory requirement, I was suggesting doing ti because it was useful. > >I guess I would like to hear more about why people think this is so hard. >We seem to agree we need an extensible hints structure for things like >this in the future. We have lots of experience with codec selection. I'm >proposing that the it is optional to implement and the browser can ignore >the hint. So what is that people don't like about this? I'm just not >getting it? Thanks Cullen- Just wanted to get it clarified that we exclude some of the e911-like stuff in the first round, :-)! Personally, I have no strong opinion on how this particular question should be solved but Your approach with optional sounds reasonable- my concern is more general that we have pretty enough with stuff to handle anyway in the first phase of 'webrtc' in both w3c and ietf. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 19:43:22 UTC