Re: [maitai] Roles of Sender and Receiver

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
> 