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

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

На 20.09.11 14:58, Stefan Håkansson LK написа:
> I think we should skip both these use cases for the time being.
> 
> I think we have more than enough to design and agree on to get real-time 
> audio and video (with recording) and p2p data. There are design choices 
> to make and agree on all over the place (from user consent to RTP).

I am not sure I understand the we-already-have-too-much-on-our-plate
argument. If Desktop Sharing is declared optional then the specification
could move at its own pace without blocking other specs or implementations.

> Besides I think that the most obvious (WebEx-like if you want) use case 
> for A is document sharing and slide presentations - and we all know that 
> there are several such services available already. So the pieces to 
> build them are already available.

We already have more than several ways of doing VoIP and video calls,
many of which already work in browsers. Obviously, the argument hasn't
prevented us from starting RTCWEB.

Emil

> 
> So my 2 cents say: let's push this into phase 2, and focus on getting 
> phase 1 out in a timely manner :) Sorry for not being enthusiastic.
> 
> On 2011-09-19 09:02, 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
> 

-- 
Emil Ivov, Ph.D.                       67000 Strasbourg,
Project Lead                           France
Jitsi
[e-mail]                        PHONE: [phone]
http://jitsi.org                       FAX:   [phone]