Re: media casting cluster*

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 3/26/21 2:23 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Don't be too sure. The chrome part of the name may be because there is 
> a browser in it.


Ah, good point. Makes app upgrades easy too. It's amazing what you can 
get in a SoC these days...


Mike


>
> Den 18. mars 2021 20:59:36 CET, skrev Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>:
>
>
>     On 3/16/21 4:18 PM, Tim Cappalli wrote:
>>     Are you asking about content handoff (aka casting) or screen
>>     mirroring? They operate very differently.
>>
>>     DIAL is used for content handoff.
>
>
>     I'm talking about casting, but really both could use to be
>     standardized. I looked over that document (i could only see the
>     first 7 pages for some reason), and that kind of the way that
>     Chromecast behaves but not exactly. Chomecast doesn't launch
>     specific apps itself, it just fetches the media. I saw a vague
>     reference to a token which I'm guessing is some sort of bearer
>     token but didn't see how that works.
>
>
>     The larger issue is that this entire area is a mess with tons of
>     opacity and lack of standardization. I can't, for example, use
>     Firefox to drive Chromecast.
>
>
>     Mike
>
>
>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *From:* Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>
>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, March 16, 2021 19:17
>>     *To:* Tim Cappalli <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>     <[e-mail]>
>>     *Subject:* Re: media casting cluster*
>>
>>
>>     On 3/16/21 4:14 PM, Tim Cappalli wrote:
>>>     The DIAL protocol, used by Chromecast, is at least publicly
>>>     documented: DIAL-2ndScreenProtocol-2.2.1.pdf (google.com)
>>>     <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv%26pid%3Dsites%26srcid%3DZGlhbC1tdWx0aXNjcmVlbi5vcmd8ZGlhbHxneDo1MWVmNzNhZDUyYTI0YTkz&data=04%7C01%7CTim.Cappalli%40microsoft.com%7Ca7253e10c6f1471f080908d8e8d1a42a%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637515334395551096%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=qxFW05hl3mEJLHcVK9vkuSb2RxfdO1HGxZiN%2FxVvIbM%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>     I've seen this before, and I'm pretty sure that it's not the
>>     whole story. Or maybe it's something more recent?
>>
>>
>>     Mike
>>
>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     *From:* ietf <[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Michael Thomas
>>>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, March 16, 2021 16:55
>>>     *To:* IETF Discussion Mailing List <[e-mail]>
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     *Subject:* media casting cluster*
>>>
>>>     If we built such a thing would they come? It's extremely
>>>     frustrating
>>>     that Apple, Google and Amazon all have different proprietary
>>>     protocols
>>>     to cast media from your phone or laptop to a tv or whatever.
>>>     they all
>>>     have interoperability problems because their petty business
>>>     fueds, and
>>>     for users it is a complete nightmare to try to figure out what
>>>     is going
>>>     wrong which happens way too often. Worst of all, is that since it's
>>>     proprietary we have no clue what is happening under the hood and
>>>     especially what is going on the security front. For example, if
>>>     I were
>>>     to cast at a public venue would I potentially be opening myself
>>>     up to
>>>     some sort of attack? Nobody but them knows and they aren't telling.
>>>
>>>     Mike
>>>
>
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.