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

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F5B21F8C9B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.336
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YTOmkAKyVT4w for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34A421F8C97 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-8b-4e788e01efae
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C1.F0.20773.10E887E4; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:58:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [150.132.141.36] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:58:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4E788E00.9020909@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:58:40 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:56:18 -0000

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).

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.

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  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb