[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-romanow-clue-telepresence-use-cases) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 7205

CLUE WG                                                       A. Romanow
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Informational                                 S. Botzko
Expires: January 10, 2012                                   M. Duckworth
                                                                 Polycom
                                                            R. Even, Ed.
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                              T. Eubanks
                                                 Iformata Communications
                                                            July 9, 2011


                Use Cases for Telepresence Multi-streams
             draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases-01.txt

Abstract

   Telepresence conferencing systems seek to create the sense of really
   being present.  A number of techniques for handling audio and video
   streams are used to create this experience.  When these techniques
   are not similar, interoperability between different systems is
   difficult at best, and often not possible.  Conveying information
   about the relationships between multiple streams of media would allow
   senders and receivers to make choices to allow telepresence systems
   to interwork.  This memo describes the most typical and important use
   cases for sending multiple streams in a telepresence conference.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Telepresence Scenarios Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Use Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Point to point meeting: symmetric  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Point to point meeting: asymmetric . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Multipoint meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.  Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.5.  Heterogeneous Systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.6.  Multipoint Education Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.7.  Multipoint Multiview (Virtual space) . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15























Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


1.  Introduction

   Telepresence applications try to provide a "being there" experience
   for conversational video conferencing.  Often this telepresence
   application is described as "immersive telepresence" in order to
   distinguish it from traditional video conferencing, and from other
   forms of remote presence not related to conversational video
   conferencing, such as avatars and robots.  The salient
   characteristics of telepresence are often described as: full-sized,
   immersive video, preserving interpersonal interaction and allowing
   non-verbal communication.

   Although telepresence systems are based on open standards such as RTP
   [RFC3550], SIP [RFC3261] , H.264, and the H.323 suite of protocols,
   they cannot easily interoperate with each other without operator
   assistance and expensive additional equipment which translates from
   one vendor to another.  A standard way of describing the multiple
   streams constituting the media flows and the fundamental aspects of
   their behavior, would allow telepresence systems to interwork.

   This draft presents a set of use cases describing typical scenarios.
   Requirements will be derived from these use cases in a separate
   document.  The use cases are described from the viewpoint of the
   users.  They are illustrative of the user experience that needs to be
   supported.  It is possible to implement these use cases in a variety
   of different ways.

   Many different scenarios need to be supported.  Our strategy in this
   document is to describe in detail the most common and basic use
   cases.  These will cover most of the requirements.  Additional
   scenarios that bring new features and requirements will be added.

   We look at telepresence conferences that are point-to-point and
   multipoint.  In some settings, the number of displays is similar at
   all sites, in others, the number of displays differs at different
   sites.  Both cases are considered.  Also included is a use case
   describing display of presentation or content.

   The document structure is as follows:Section 2 gives an overview of
   the scenarios, and Section 3 describes use cases.


2.  Telepresence Scenarios Overview

   This section describes the general characteristics of the use cases
   and what the scenarios are intended to show.  The typical setting is
   a business conference, which was the initial focus of telepresence.
   Recently consumer products are also being developed.  We specifically



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   do not include in our scenarios the infrastructure aspects of
   telepresence, such as room construction, layout and decoration.

   Telepresence systems are typically composed of one or more video
   cameras and encoders and one or more display monitors of large size
   (around 60").  Microphones pick up sound and audio codec(s)produce
   one or more audio streams.  The cameras used to present the
   telepresence users we will call participant cameras (and likewise for
   displays).  There may also be other cameras, such as for document
   display.  These will be referred to as presentation or content
   cameras, which generally have different formats, aspect ratios, and
   frame rates from the participant cameras.  The presentation videos
   may be shown on participant screen, or on auxiliary display screens.
   A user's computer may also serve as a virtual content camera,
   generating an animation or playing back a video for display to the
   remote participants.

   We describe such a telepresence system as sending M video streams, N
   audio streams, and D content streams to the remote system(s).  (Note
   that the number of audio streams is generally not the same as the
   number of video streams.)

   The fundamental parameters describing today's typical telepresence
   scenario include:

   1.   The number of participating sites

   2.   The number of visible seats at a site

   3.   The number of cameras

   4.   The number of audio channels

   5.   The screen size

   6.   The display capabilities - such as resolution, frame rate,
        aspect ratio

   7.   The arrangement of the displays in relation to each other

   8.   Similar or dissimilar number of primary screens at all sites

   9.   Type and number of presentation displays

   10.  Multipoint conference display strategies - for example, the
        camera-to-display mappings may be static or dynamic





Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   11.  The camera viewpoint

   12.  The cameras fields of view and how they do or do not overlap

   The basic features that give telepresence its distinctive
   characteristics are implemented in disparate ways in different
   systems.  Currently Telepresence systems from diverse vendors
   interoperate to some extent, but this is not supported in a standards
   based fashion.  Interworking requires that translation and
   transcoding devices be included in the architecture.  Such devices
   increase latency, reducing the quality of interpersonal interaction.
   Use of these devices is often not automatic; it frequently requires
   substantial manual configuration and a detailed understanding of the
   nature of underlying audio and video streams.  This state of affairs
   is not acceptable for the continued growth of telepresence - we
   believe telepresence systems should have the same ease of
   interoperability as do telephones.

   There is no agreed upon way to adequately describe the semantics of
   how streams of various media types relate to each other.  Without a
   standard for stream semantics to describe the particular roles and
   activities of each stream in the conference, interoperability is
   cumbersome at best.

   In a multiple screen conference, the video and audio streams sent
   from remote participants must be understood by receivers so that they
   can be presented in a coherent and life-like manner.  This includes
   the ability to present remote participants at their true size for
   their apparent distance, while maintaining correct eye contact,
   gesticular cues, and simultaneously providing a spatial audio sound
   stage that is consistent with the video presentation.

   The receiving device that decides how to display incoming information
   needs to understand a number of variables such as the spatial
   position of the speaker, the field of view of the cameras; the camera
   zoom; which media stream is related to each of the displays; etc.  It
   is not simply that individual streams must be adequately described,
   to a large extent this already exists, but rather that the semantics
   of the relationships between the streams must be communicated.  Note
   that all of this is still required even if the basic aspects of the
   streams, such as the bit rate, frame rate, and aspect ratio, are
   known.  Thus, this problem has aspects considerably beyond those
   encountered in interoperation of single-node video conferencing
   units.







Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


3.  Use Case Scenarios

   Our development of use cases is staged, initially focusing on what is
   currently typical and important.  Use cases that add future or more
   specialized features will be added later as needed.  Also, there are
   a number of possible variants for these use cases, for example, the
   audio supported may differ at the end points (such as mono or stereo
   versus surround sound), etc.

   The use cases here are intended to be hierarchical, in that the
   earlier use cases describe basics of telepresence that will also be
   used by later use cases.

   Many of these systems offer a full conference room solution where
   local participants sit on one side of a table and remote participants
   are displayed as if they are sitting on the other side of the table.
   The cameras and screens are typically arranged to provide a panoramic
   (left to right from the local user view point) view of the remote
   room.

   The sense of immersion and non-verbal communication is fostered by a
   number of technical features, such as:

   1.  Good eye contact, which is achieved by careful placement of
       participants, cameras and screens.

   2.  Camera field of view and screen sizes are matched so that the
       images of the remote room appear to be full size.

   3.  The left side of each room is presented on the right display at
       the far end; similarly the right side of the room is presented on
       the left display.  The effect of this is that participants of
       each site appear to be sitting across the table from each other.
       If two participants on the same site glance at each other, all
       participants can observe it.  Likewise, if a participant on one
       site gestures to a participant on the other site, all
       participants observe the gesture itself and the participants it
       includes.

3.1.  Point to point meeting: symmetric

   In this case each of the two sites has an identical number of
   screens, with cameras having fixed fields of view, and one camera for
   each screen.  The sound type is the same at each end.  As an example,
   there could be 3 cameras and 3 screens in each room, with stereo
   sound being sent and received at each end.

   The important thing here is that each of the 2 sites has the same



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   number of screens.  Each screen is paired with a corresponding
   camera.  Each camera / screen pair is typically connected to a
   separate codec, producing a video encoded stream for transmission to
   the remote site, and receiving a similarly encoded stream from the
   remote site.

   Each system has one or multiple microphones for capturing audio.  In
   some cases, stereophonic microphones are employed.  In other systems,
   a microphone may be placed in front of each participant (or pair of
   participants).  In typical systems all the microphones are connected
   to a single codec that sends and receives the audio streams as either
   stereo or surround sound.  The number of microphones and the number
   of audio channels are often not the same as the number of cameras.
   Also the number of microphones is often not the same as the number of
   loudspeakers.

   The audio may be transmitted as multi-channel (stereo/surround sound)
   or as distinct and separate monophonic streams.  Audio levels should
   be matched, so the sound levels at both sites are identical.
   Loudspeaker and microphone placements are chosen so that the sound
   "stage" (orientation of apparent audio sources) is coordinated with
   the video.  That is, if a participant on one site speaks, the
   participants at the remote site perceive her voice as originating
   from her visual image.  In order to accomplish this, the audio needs
   to be mapped at the received site in the same fashion as the video.
   That is, audio received from the right side of the room needs to be
   output from loudspeaker(s) on the left side at the remote site, and
   vice versa.

3.2.  Point to point meeting: asymmetric

   In this case, each site has a different number of screens and cameras
   than the other site.  The important characteristic of this scenario
   is that the number of displays is different between the two sites.
   This creates challenges which are handled differently by different
   telepresence systems.

   This use case builds on the basic scenario of 3 screens to 3 screens.
   Here, we use the common case of 3 screens and 3 cameras at one site,
   and 1 screen and 1 camera at the other site, connected by a point to
   point call.  The display sizes and camera fields of view at both
   sites are basically similar, such that each camera view is designed
   to show two people sitting side by side.  Thus the 1 screen room has
   up to 2 people seated at the table, while the 3 screen room may have
   up to 6 people at the table.

   The basic considerations of defining left and right and indicating
   relative placement of the multiple audio and video streams are the



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   same as in the 3-3 use case.  However, handling the mismatch between
   the two sites of the number of displays and cameras requires more
   complicated maneuvers.

   For the video sent from the 1 camera room to the 3 screen room,
   usually what is done is to simply use 1 of the 3 displays and keep
   the second and third displays inactive, or put up the date, for
   example.  This would maintain the "full size" image of the remote
   side.

   For the other direction, the 3 camera room sending video to the 1
   screen room, there are more complicated variations to consider.  Here
   are several possible ways in which the video streams can be handled.

   1.  The 1 screen system might simply show only 1 of the 3 camera
       images, since the receiving side has only 1 screen.  Two people
       are seen at full size, but 4 people are not seen at all.  The
       choice of which 1 of the 3 streams to display could be fixed, or
       could be selected by the users.  It could also be made
       automatically based on who is speaking in the 3 screen room, such
       that the people in the 1 screen room always see the person who is
       speaking.  If the automatic selection is done at the sender, the
       transmission of streams that are not displayed could be
       suppressed, which would avoid wasting bandwidth.

   2.  The 1 screen system might be capable of receiving and decoding
       all 3 streams from all 3 cameras.  The 1 screen system could then
       compose the 3 streams into 1 local image for display on the
       single screen.  All six people would be seen, but smaller than
       full size.  This could be done in conjunction with reducing the
       image resolution of the streams, such that encode/decode
       resources and bandwidth are not wasted on streams that will be
       downsized for display anyway.

   3.  The 3 screen system might be capable of including all 6 people in
       a single stream to send to the 1 screen system.  For example, it
       could use PTZ (Pan Tilt Zoom) cameras to physically adjust the
       cameras such that 1 camera captures the whole room of six people.
       Or it could recompose the 3 camera images into 1 encoded stream
       to send to the remote site.  These variations also show all six
       people, but at a reduced size.

   4.  Or, there could be a combination of these approaches, such as
       simultaneously showing the speaker in full size with a composite
       of all the 6 participants in smaller size.

   The receiving telepresence system needs to have information about the
   content of the streams it receives to make any of these decisions.



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   If the systems are capable of supporting more than one strategy,
   there needs to be some negotiation between the two sites to figure
   out which of the possible variations they will use in a specific
   point to point call.

3.3.  Multipoint meeting

   In a multipoint telepresence conference, there are more than two
   sites participating.  Additional complexity is required to enable
   media streams from each participant to show up on the displays of the
   other participants.

   Clearly, there are a great number of topologies that can be used to
   display the streams from multiple sites participating in a
   conference.

   One major objective for telepresence is to be able to preserve the
   "Being there" user experience.  However, in multi-site conferences it
   is often (in fact usually) not possible to simultaneously provide
   full size video, eye contact, common perception of gestures and gaze
   by all participants.  Several policies can be used for stream
   distribution and display: all provide good results but they all make
   different compromises.

   One common policy is called site switching.  Let's say the speaker is
   at site A and everyone else is at a "remote" site.  When the room at
   site A shown, all the camera images from site A are forwarded to the
   remote sites.  Therefore at each receiving remote site, all the
   screens display camera images from site A. This can be used to
   preserve full size image display, and also provide full visual
   context of the displayed far end, site A. In site switching, there is
   a fixed relation between the cameras in each room and the displays in
   remote rooms.  The room or participants being shown is switched from
   time to time based on who is speaking or by manual control, e.g.,
   from site A to site B.

   Segment switching is another policy choice.  Still using site A as
   where the speaker is, and "remote" to refer to all the other sites,
   in segment switching, rather than sending all the images from site A,
   only the speaker at site A is shown.  The camera images of the
   current speaker and previous speakers (if any) are forwarded to the
   other sites in the conference.  Therefore the screens in each site
   are usually displaying images from different remote sites - the
   current speaker at site A and the previous ones.  This strategy can
   be used to preserve full size image display, and also capture the
   non-verbal communication between the speakers.  In segment switching,
   the display depends on the activity in the remote rooms - generally,
   but not necessarily based on audio / speech detection).



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   A third possibility is to reduce the image size so that multiple
   camera views can be composited onto one or more screens.  This does
   not preserve full size image display, but provides the most visual
   context (since more sites or segments can be seen).  Typically in
   this case the display mapping is static, i.e., each part of each room
   is shown in the same location on the display screens throughout the
   conference.

   Other policies and combinations are also possible.  For example,
   there can be a static display of all screens from all remote rooms,
   with part or all of one screen being used to show the current speaker
   at full size.

3.4.  Presentation

   In addition to the video and audio streams showing the participants,
   additional streams are used for presentations.

   In systems available today, generally only one additional video
   stream is available for presentations.  Often this presentation
   stream is half-duplex in nature, with presenters taking turns.  The
   presentation video may be captured from a PC screen, or it may come
   from a multimedia source such as a document camera, camcorder or a
   DVD.  In a multipoint meeting, the presentation streams for the
   currently active presentation are always distributed to all sites in
   the meeting, so that the presentations are viewed by all.

   Some systems display the presentation video on a screen that is
   mounted either above or below the three participant screens.  Other
   systems provide monitors on the conference table for observing
   presentations.  If multiple presentation monitors are used, they
   generally display identical content.  There is considerable variation
   in the placement, number, and size or presentation displays.

   In some systems presentation audio is pre-mixed with the room audio.
   In others, a separate presentation audio stream is provided (if the
   presentation includes audio).

   In H.323 systems, H.239 is typically used to control the video
   presentation stream.  In SIP systems, similar control mechanisms can
   be provided using BFCP [RFC4582] for presentation token.  These
   mechanisms are suitable for managing a single presentation stream.

   Although today's systems remain limited to a single video
   presentation stream, there are obvious uses for multiple presentation
   streams.





Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   1.  Frequently the meeting convener is following a meeting agenda,
       and it is useful for her to be able to show that agenda to all
       participants during the meeting.  Other participants at various
       remote sites are able to make presentations during the meeting,
       with the presenters taking turns.  The presentations and the
       agenda are both shown, either on separate displays, or perhaps
       re-scaled and shown on a single display.

   2.  A single multimedia presentation can itself include multiple
       video streams that should be shown together.  For instance, a
       presenter may be discussing the fairness of media coverage.  In
       addition to slides which support the presenter's conclusions, she
       also has video excerpts from various news programs which she
       shows to illustrate her findings.  She uses a DVD player for the
       video excerpts so that she can pause and reposition the video as
       needed.  Another example is an educator who is presenting a
       multi-screen slide show.  This show requires that the placement
       of the images on the multiple displays at each site be
       consistent.

   There are many other examples where multiple presentation streams are
   useful.

3.5.  Heterogeneous Systems

   It is common in meeting scenarios for people to join the conference
   from a variety of environments, using different types of endpoint
   devices.  In a multi-screen immersive telepresence conference may
   include someone on a PC-based video conferencing system, a
   participant calling in by phone, and (soon) someone on a handheld
   device.

   What experience/view will each of these devices have?

   Some may be able to handle multiple streams and others can handle
   only a single stream.  (We are not here talking about legacy systems,
   but rather systems built to participate in such a conference,
   although they are single stream only.)  In a single video stream ,
   the stream may contain one or more compositions depending on the
   available screen space on the device.  In most cases a transcoding
   intermediate device will be relied upon to produce a single stream,
   perhaps with some kind of continuous presence.

   Bit rates will vary - the handheld and phone having lower bit rates
   than PC and multi-screen systems.

   Layout is accomplished according to different policies.  For example,
   a handheld and PC may receive the active speaker stream.  The



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   decision can either be made explicitly by the receiver or by the
   sender if it can receive some kind of rendering hint.  The same is
   true for audio -- i. e., that it receives a mixed stream or a number
   of the loudest speakers if mixing is not available in the network.

   For the software conferencing participant, the user's experience
   depends on the application.  It could be single stream, similar to a
   handheld but with a bigger screen.  Or, it could be multiple streams,
   similar to an immersive but with a smaller screen.  Control for
   manipulation of streams can be local in the software application, or
   in another location and sent to the application over the network.

   The handheld device is the most extreme.  How will that participant
   be viewed and heard? it should be an equal participant, though the
   bandwidth will be significantly less than an immersive system.  A
   receiver may choose to display output coming from a handheld
   differently based on the resolution, but that would be the case with
   any low resolution video stream, e. g., from a powerful PC on a bad
   network.

   The handheld will send and receive a single video stream, which could
   be a composite or a subset of the conference.  The handheld could say
   what it wants or could accept whatever the sender (conference server
   or sending endpoint) thinks is best.  The handheld will have to
   signal any actions it wants to take the same way that immersive
   signals.

3.6.  Multipoint Education Usage

   The importance of this example is that the multiple video streams are
   not used to create an immersive conferencing experience with
   panoramic views at all the site.  Instead the multiple streams are
   dynamically used to enable full participation of remote students in a
   university class.  In some instances the same video stream is
   displayed on multiple displays in the room, in other instances an
   available stream is not displayed at all.

   The main site is a university auditorium which is equipped with three
   cameras.  One camera is focused on the professor at the podium.  A
   second camera is mounted on the wall behind the professor and
   captures the class in its entirety.  The third camera is co-located
   with the second, and is designed to capture a close up view of a
   questioner in the audience.  It automatically zooms in on that
   student using sound localization.

   Although the auditorium is equipped with three cameras, it is only
   equipped with two screens.  One is a large screen located at the
   front so that the class can see it.  The other is located at the rear



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   so the professor can see it.  When someone asks a question, the front
   screen shows the questioner.  Otherwise it shows the professor
   (ensuring everyone can easily see her).

   The remote sites are typical immersive telepresence room with three
   camera/screen pairs.

   All remote sites display the professor on the center screen at full
   size.  A second screen shows the entire classroom view when the
   professor is speaking.  However, when a student asks a question, the
   second screen shows the close up view of the student at full size.
   Sometimes the student is in the auditorium; sometimes the speaking
   student is at another remote site.  The remote systems never display
   the students that are actually in that room.

   If someone at the remote site asks a question, then the screen in the
   auditorium will show the remote student at full size (as if they were
   present in the auditorium itself).  The display in the rear also
   shows this questioner, allowing the professor to see and respond to
   the student without needing to turn her back on the main class.

   When no one is asking a question, the screen in the rear briefly
   shows a full-room view of each remote site in turn, allowing the
   professor to monitor the entire class (remote and local students).
   The professor can also use a control on the podium to see a
   particular site - she can choose either a full-room view or a single
   camera view.

   Realization of this use case does not require any negotiation between
   the participating sites.  Endpoint devices (and an MCU if present) -
   need to know who is speaking and what video stream includes the view
   of that speaker.  The remote systems need some knowledge of which
   stream should be placed in the center.  The ability of the professor
   to see specific sites (or for the system to show all the sites in
   turn) would also require the auditorium system to know what sites are
   available, and to be able to request a particular view of any site.
   Bandwidth is optimized if video that is not being shown at a
   particular site is not distributed to that site.

3.7.  Multipoint Multiview (Virtual space)

   This use case describes a virtual space multipoint meeting with good
   eye contact and spatial layout of prticipants.The use case was
   proposed very early in the development of video conferencing systems
   as described in 1983 by allardyce and Randal [virtualspace].  The use
   case is illustrated in figure 2-5 of their report.  The virtual space
   expands the point to point case by having all multipoint conference
   participants "seat" in a virtual room.  In theis case each



Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   participant has a fixed "seat" in the virtual room so each
   participant expects to see a different view having a different
   participant on his left and right side.  Today, the use case is
   implmented in multiple telepresence type video confeencing systems on
   the market.  The term "virtual space" was used in their report.  The
   main difference between the result obtained with modern systems and
   those from 1983 are larger display sizes.

   Virtual space multipoint as defined here assumes endpoints with
   multiple cameras and displays.  Usually there are the same number of
   cameras and displays at a given endpoint.  A camera is positioned
   above each display.  A key aspect of virtual space multipoint is the
   details of how the cameras are aimed.  The cameras are each aimed on
   the same area of view of the participants at the site.  Thus each
   camera takes a picture of the same set of people but from a different
   angle.  Each endpoint sender in the virtual space multipoint meeting
   therefore offers a choice of video streams to remote receivers, each
   stream representing a different view point.  For example a camera
   positioned above a display to a participant's left may take video
   pictures of the participant's left ear while at the same time, a
   camera positioned above a display to the participant's right may take
   video pictures of the participant's right ear.

   Since a sending endpoint has a camera associated with each display,
   an association is made between the receiving stream output on a
   particular display and the corresponding sending stream from the
   camera associated with that display.  These associations are repeated
   for each display/camera pair in a meeting.  The result of this system
   is a horizontal arrangement of video images from remote sites, one
   per display.  The image from each display is paired with the camera
   output from the camera above that display resulting in excellent eye
   contact.


4.  Acknowledgements

   The draft has benefitted from input from a number of people including
   Alex Eleftheriadis, Tommy Andre Nyquist, Mark Gorzynski, Charles
   Eckel, Nermeen Ismail, Mary Barnes, Pascal Buhler, Jim Cole.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document contains no IANA considerations.







Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


6.  Security Considerations

   While there are likely to be security considerations for any solution
   for telepresence interoperability, this document has no security
   considerations.


7.  Informative References

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC4582]  Camarillo, G., Ott, J., and K. Drage, "The Binary Floor
              Control Protocol (BFCP)", RFC 4582, November 2006.

   [virtualspace]
              Allardyre and Randall, "Development of Teleconferencing
              Methodologies With Emphasis on Virtual Space Videe and
              Interactive Graphics", 1983.


Authors' Addresses

   Allyn Romanow
   Cisco
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: allyn@cisco.com


   Stephen Botzko
   Polycom
   Andover, MA  01810
   US

   Email: stephen.botzko@polycom.com








Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           Telepresence Use Cases                July 2011


   Mark Duckworth
   Polycom
   Andover, MA  01810
   US

   Email: mark.duckworth@polycom.com


   Roni Even (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   Tel Aviv,
   Israel

   Email: even.roni@huawei.com


   Marshall Eubanks
   Iformata Communications
   Dayton, Ohio  45402
   US

   Email: marshall.eubanks@ilformata.com





























Romanow, et al.         Expires January 10, 2012               [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/