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

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 1CBB621F8C6B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.548, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Vc1sqrMyPN-7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F56121F8C77 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=2521; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1316531336; x=1317740936; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YxBufm4XRv0QW+M2mECoBni4TJ2UB4zTwkMAdlou1tk=; b=DCeyMZmXPJ3EOlY43UD6nupOYthRKZj8VGdLUU72KSfvYzRdQqAoPZgh ytrKGby0yKU9WnIusGw62y/lOJrIUukVcPA9ALetXmmDlUs/4c3mCWob5 HSQi/ziYEJGyi6uDbssEwKIS5nyfAnYpdJyeA+YKOo5VC1KLRMQEPoDhQ 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAHOreE6rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABCp1x4gVMBAQEBAgEBAQEJBgEKUQsFCQILPwcbDB8RBhMih1UGlVUBnkEChhtgBIdwi1uFHoww
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,411,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="3196493"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2011 15:08:56 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8KF8t96001351; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:08:56 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:08:55 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <859C2B20-7858-480C-9E5E-577C889C330D@cisco.com>
References: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 15:06:31 -0000

I think we should do both and we should do it by using SDP to negotiation a session of VNC as defined in RFC 6143. Given we will have a way of setting up a data channel between endpoints, running RFC 6143 on top of it is trivial and does not add much work or complexity. I would propose this as optional to implement. 

On Sep 19, 2011, at 1:02 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.
> 
> 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