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

[Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>]

Just a note: we'll not release a new version of the use case doc this week as discussed earlier, instead we'll incorporate this use case in a new version sometime next week.

Stefan
________________________________________
From: Stefan Håkansson LK [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:50 AM
To: Magnus Westerlund; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing

We'll draft something for A.

Stefan for the Editors.
________________________________________
From: Magnus Westerlund [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:37 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus on Use Case for Screen/Application/Desktop sharing

WG,

This is the conclusion of this call for consensus.

I see a consensus for A, but there is a few individuals objecting
against it.

For B the is more significant push back from quite many individuals. The
main arguments being security concerns and the time required to analyze
the security concerns and find a solution for them. The security
concerns include both consent issues and questions of control
(allowing/disallowing) of the functionality within enterprises etc.

Thus my determination is that A shall be included in the use case
document, while B is not included. Editors of the use cases document,
can you please prepare some text for the use case and any derived
requirements that you see.

Best Regards

Magnus Westerlund
WG chair

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  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>


--

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------