Subject: [rtcweb] Requesting a new use case / requirement for draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:11:16 +0200

Hi, I would like to request a new use case / requirement for WebRTC to
be included in draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements:

Contacting a conference server
---------------------------------------------

The browser must be able to generate a media offer to be sent to a
conference server, by providing its audio and video information (media
tracks to be sent by the browser), and the conference server must be
able to reply a single response accepting the offer and indicating the
browser all the media tracks from other participants it will send to
it. This must be possible without requiring a new media negotiation
round trip, and without requiring that the browser knows the number of
participants in the conference before contacting it.

Note that in this scenario the browser is the session initiator and
thus the media description offerer, while the conference server
provides the media description answer.

Thanks a lot.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:16:12 +0200

This seems to conflate what you want the service to do and how you believe
it ought to operate.  The core use case appears to be a variant of the
"Multiparty video communication" in section 4.2.10.1.  If I understand
correctly, this variant retains the browser behavior in respect to
rendering of peer media, but gets all the audio and video streams from a
single peer (the conferencing server).

This text:

"The conference server must be able to reply a single response accepting
the offer and indicating the browser all the media tracks from other
participants it will send to it. This must be possible without requiring a
new media negotiation round trip, and without requiring that the browser
knows the number of participants in the conference before contacting it."

is not appropriate for a use case.  It's a proposed constraint on the
solution, rather than a description of the use.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:05:50 +0200

2013/7/30 Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>:
> "The conference server must be able to reply a single response accepting the
> offer and indicating the browser all the media tracks from other

Hi Ted, I agree that the above is not an use case but a requirement.
But in contrast to what you say, I don't consider it a "constrain".
Instead I consider a constrain the current SDP O/A mandate which does
not let me implementing the above (the opposite is not true).

Should I request a new "requirement" for the draft instead of a new use case?

Best regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>