[rtcweb] Sample implementation of screensharing (Re: Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 21 September 2011 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 6D6C621F8B56 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:38:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.913, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 Y4pFt8uAHKDx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE86F21F8AF9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D6039E0A7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:40:46 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id niQXpOWSPvBb for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:40:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (c213-89-141-213.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.141.213]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0313139E088 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:40:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E79A30D.4050306@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:40:45 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Thunderbird/3.1.13
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
Subject: [rtcweb] Sample implementation of screensharing (Re: 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: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:38:19 -0000

For your info / full disclosure / shameless plug:

Today's announcement of "Google+ Hangouts with Extras" includes an 
implementation of window sharing, which indeed encodes a window as a 
video stream and sends it over the network.

Here's the help page:

http://www.google.com/support/plus/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1257349&topic=1651691 
<http://www.google.com/support/plus/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1257349&topic=1651691>

So we know that we can make one design approach work in our browser 
plugin....

               Harald

On 09/19/2011 09:02 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
>