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

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <saul@ag-projects.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 5456D21F8B8B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.645
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, 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 YACh6vgyWVoI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB1421F8461 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id AA985B01B0; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:38:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.99.36] (ip3e830637.speed.planet.nl [62.131.6.55]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 068FEB019A; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:38:08 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E76E8E8.2050102@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:38:06 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3740CF72-D108-4C85-BE69-41285BA9550C@ag-projects.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: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:35:48 -0000

On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:02 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?
> 

I'd go for both.

> 2) Do you have additional comments for or against either of the use cases?
> 

As Harald already said, this is far from being an easy task, so I wonder if this should be defined as a standardized use case or a 'mandatory feature'.


--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects