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

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9050621F8BA9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.506
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id owuzxOuCkXRy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C396D21F8BA8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-db-4e76e8e97772
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 35.20.20773.9E8E67E4; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:02:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:02:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:02:00 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [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: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:59:41 -0000


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

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

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