Re: [maitai] Roles of Sender and Receiver

["Duckworth, Mark" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Peter Musgrave
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:02 PM
> To: Mike Hammer (hmmr)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [maitai] Roles of Sender and Receiver
> 
> I think this is actually a different, very interesting issue. This
> speaks to control DURING the call and the need for that to be dynamic.
> I completely agree - but as understand the charter it's out of
> scope...although I think it is inevitable that we will need to look at
> what exists (BFCP, conference event etc.) and determine if it can be
> used or start to define something new.

I agree, except I think this issue is within the scope of the charter.
The charter version 8 does say far end camera control is out of scope,
but it also says this is in scope: "As part of the receiver telling the
sender what it wants dynamically, explicit receiver notification to the
sender of the desired video stream and video pause will be considered."
This seems to leave a lot of room for dynamic handling of video stream
selection, within scope of the charter.

> This might be subverted by sending all and letting the receiver take
> them on and off hold quickly...clunky but avoid protocol work.
> 
> My specific question relates to the initial setup where I have two 3
> display, 3 camera systems from different vendors. Who decides which
> stream goes where? Sender or receiver?

I was thinking the sender would somehow indicate the spatial relationship
between the streams it sends.  Then a receiver can render it appropriately
on its display(s).

Mark


> Peter
> 
> On 2010-12-02, at 2:47 PM, Mike Hammer (hmmr) wrote:
> 
> > Ummmm....
> >
> > Part of the issue is that with multiple participants with multiple
> > inputs and outputs, you can't send all inputs from all sites to all
> > other sites.  You kill the network, so some judicious control of what
> is
> > sent when and to whom is needed.  That means that some inputs
> > (microphone or camera) are not transmitted at times.
> >
> > So, do we allow legs to be asymmetric or not?
> >
> > Interested in your view of the collective impact of these types of
> > control decisions.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Musgrave [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:00 PM
> > To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
> > Cc: Mike Hammer (hmmr); [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [maitai] Roles of Sender and Receiver
> >
> >
> > On 2010-12-02, at 11:10 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
> >
> >> have 3 cameras, left, center, and right.
> >> I can provide these as:
> >> - 3 separate streams
> >> - 1 active speaker switched stream
> >> - 1 stream composed of the three
> >
> > Ok, I see what you're after.
> >
> > In the case where the receiver elects to get three separate streams,
> > then I have a refinement for my question.
> >
> > Who now decides how the streams from A map on to screens at B?
> >
> > A could send streams targeted at specific screens at B (after
> examining
> > B's description of it's screens)
> >
> > -or-
> >
> > B could send A instructions on where to send each stream (based on
> > examining A's description of it's cameras)
> >
> > -or-
> >
> > We can find use-cases in which both techniques might be required.
> >
> > I am trying to decide how complete the information in a room
> description
> > really needs to be. While I like the idea of a reasonably complete
> > physical description (since it is very future proof) - I think it
> > imposes a burden on each side which might not be warranted. The other
> > extreme (just label cameras left, center, right) seems to obviously
> > limited. Where is the middle ground?
> >
> > Peter Musgrave