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

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.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 6164A21F8BE4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 K299l8hJ8IOQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtplq01.aruba.it (smtplq-out17.aruba.it [62.149.158.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1519F21F8B74 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14916 invoked by uid 89); 20 Sep 2011 13:29:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp2.aruba.it) (62.149.158.222) by smtplq01.aruba.it with SMTP; 20 Sep 2011 13:29:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 16031 invoked by uid 89); 20 Sep 2011 13:29:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lminiero-acer) (lorenzo@meetecho.com@143.225.229.166) by smtp2.ad.aruba.it with SMTP; 20 Sep 2011 13:29:34 -0000
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:25:02 +0200
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: Stefan =?ISO-8859-1?B?SOVrYW5zc29u?= LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <20110920152502.62f06c61@lminiero-acer>
In-Reply-To: <4E788E00.9020909@ericsson.com>
References: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com> <4E788E00.9020909@ericsson.com>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.22.0; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Rating: smtp2.ad.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: smtplq01.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N
Cc: 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 13:27:12 -0000

+1, let's not put too many things together.

Lorenzo



Il giorno Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:58:40 +0200
Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> ha scritto:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb



-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com