Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing

[Jim McEachern <[e-mail]>]

I also support including A) in our use cases now, but deferring B) till later.

Jim 

On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:29 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 09/19/2011 09:02 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> WG,
>> 
>> There where some discussion in the Interim meeting last week about a
>> Screen/Application/Desktop sharing support use case. My take away from
>> the discussion is that this use cases is likely well enough understood
>> to actually start a consensus call now. However, to us WG chairs it was
>> clear that the use case in question actually needs to be split into two
>> parts.
>> 
>> A) Where the RTCWEB enabled browser can use a local application window,
>> the whole desktop or a Screen as a media source that can be encoded and
>> transported over the peerConnection for displaying/playback at the peer.
> I think this is a fairly well defined applicaiton (basically, take input from a synthetic source, where the synthetic source may be anything available to the browser), the baseline (but not the optimum) could simply be encoding the stuff using a default codec, and the access procedures shouldn't be much different than for microphone and camera. I support its inclusion in the document.
> 
> Note: The implementation of such a feature is far from trivial. I would not want to require that all browsers implementing RTCWeb support the feature.
>> B) Where a remote peer can provide one or more input types such as mouse
>> and keyboard to control the local system, not only including the
>> browser, but also other operating system resources. This clearly can
>> only happen after additional consent, most likely on a per occasion
>> consent.
> I see this as a  more tricky thing to get right (in most apps, the mixing of events from multiple sources depends strongly on both proper timing/sequencing and reliable delivery). I would like to not address this for now (RTCWeb version 1).
>> My interpretation is that A only allows for application sharing in
>> conferencing contexts, like in the WEBEX session the Interim meeting was
>> held with where we shared slides. Where the combination of A and B is
>> providing for VNC/Remote desktop.
>> 
>> Thus the question to the WG is the following.
>> 
>> 1) Do you support or object the inclusion of use case A, B or Both in
>> our Use case document?
>> 
>> 2) Do you have additional comments for or against either of the use cases?
>> 
>> 
>> As WG chair
>> 
>> Magnus Westerlund
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
>> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb