Re: [maitai] Roles of Sender and Receiver

 

> -----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.

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
>