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

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <> Mon, 19 September 2011 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5456D21F8B8B for <>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.645
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YACh6vgyWVoI for <>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB1421F8461 for <>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 5001) id AA985B01B0; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:38:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (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: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:38:06 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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