Re: [maitai] Roles of Sender and Receiver

WFM

On 2010-12-03, at 8:15 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> 
> On Dec 3, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: maitai-bounces@ietf.org 
>>> [mailto:maitai-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Duckworth, Mark
>>> Sent: 02 December 2010 21:37
>>> To: maitai@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [maitai] Roles of Sender and Receiver
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: maitai-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:maitai-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Peter Musgrave
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:02 PM
>>>> To: Mike Hammer (hmmr)
>>>> Cc: maitai@ietf.org
>>>> 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.
>> [JRE] I see "far end camera control" as referring to the ability to control the angle and zoom of a particular camera - that would be out of scope. But controlling which of several cameras to receive during the course of a call should indeed be within the charter.
>> 
> 
> That is my take too.
> 
> Marshall
> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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:peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:00 PM
>>>>> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>> Cc: Mike Hammer (hmmr); maitai@ietf.org
>>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> maitai mailing list
>>> maitai@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/maitai
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> maitai mailing list
>> maitai@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/maitai
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> maitai mailing list
> maitai@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/maitai