Subject: [rtcweb] Query regarding rtcweb use cases and requirements.

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:51:58 +0300

Hi, This is with regards to the following document:Web Real-Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-06.txt
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements/?include_text=1 
I have noticed that the use cases with regards to Data API of web real time communication, have not been addressed. For example: use cases that are related to file sharing between browsers. 

is there any particular reason for the same?

Regards,
Antony Meyn

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:36:27 +0200

On 03/27/2012 09:51 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> Hi,
>   
> This is with regards to the following document:
> Web Real-Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements
> I have noticed that the use cases with regards to Data API of web real 
> time communication, have not been addressed. For example: use cases 
> that are related to file sharing between browsers.
Requirement F23 is a data-passing requirement.

For communications that did not need low latency, the WG felt that the 
RTCWEB requirements were not different from the requirements of any 
other application, so those could be fulfilled with other types of 
interfaces, including server-mediated file transfers.

The WG is suggesting data API/protocol solutions that can be used for 
other things than fulfiling the most narrow interpretation of the 
requirement listed, but did not feel a need to add a requirement 
covering those.

The purpose of the "use cases and requirements" is to find a minimum set 
of things that the protocol suite has to be able to do in order to be 
"good enough", not to delineate everything the protocol can be used for.

My interpretation....

                       Harald

> Regards,
> Antony Meyn
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Antony Meyn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:05:37 +0300

@Herald: thanks.

>>For communications that did not need low latency, the WG felt that the
RTCWEB requirements were not different from the requirements of any other
application, so those could be fulfilled with other types of interfaces,
including server-mediated file transfers.

What about use cases of static(non-live) video streaming from browser to
browser, this would require low latency and servers-mediated file transfers
would only add up to the latency, right?. A user would like to share his
video without actually having to upload the content to a server.

>> The purpose of the "use cases and requirements" is to find a minimum set
of things that the protocol suite has to be able to do in order to be "good
enough", not to delineate everything the protocol can be used for.

Agree, but the use cases for the data API, does look promising, and it
didn't seem to have much attention in comparison to live video streaming
use cases.