Tech-invite3GPPspecsSIPRFCs
898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100

in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 2862

RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers

Pages: 7
Proposed Standard

ToP   noToC   RFC2862 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                        M. Civanlar
Request for Comments: 2862                                       G. Cash
Category: Standards Track                                           AT&T
                                                               June 2000


               RTP Payload Format for Real-Time Pointers

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document describes an RTP [1] payload format for transporting the coordinates of a dynamic pointer that may be used during a presentation. Although a mouse can be used as the pointer, this payload format is not intended and may not have all functionalities needed to implement a general mouse event transmission mechanism.

1. Introduction

In most presentations, significant information is conveyed through the use of viewgraphs and a pointer. This makes accurate transmission of them vital in remote conferencing applications. Using regular video of a presenter's display for this purpose is problematic because, while the viewgraphs require a high spatial resolution, the pointer movements need to be sampled and transmitted at a high temporal resolution so that the presenter's pointing actions can be displayed synchronously with the corresponding audio and video signals. In many instances, this synchronization carries vital information. As an example, consider a speaker pointing at two alternatives on a viewgraph in sequence and saying "this one is better than this". To satisfy both high spatial and high temporal resolution requirements, at least S-VHS quality video may need to be used. Codecs that can compress S-VHS video effectively in real-time are expensive for this purpose, and transmitting such video uncompressed requires very high bandwidths.
ToP   noToC   RFC2862 - Page 2
   A much simpler and economical system can be designed by capturing and
   transmitting the pointer coordinates separately [2]. The pointer
   coordinates with respect to a displayed viewgraph can easily be
   obtained in electronic presentation systems. For presentations
   prepared for optical systems, such as transparencies for overhead
   projectors, an arrangement where the viewgraph is captured in a frame
   buffer on a computer can be used to associate the pointer coordinates
   with the displayed viewgraph. For capturing transparencies, printed
   material, or even three dimensional objects, a document camera and a
   personal computer or workstation based video capture card can be
   used.  This arrangement can handle electronic viewgraphs by feeding
   the video output of the computer that displays them to the video
   capture card through an appropriate converter also. A side benefit of
   this is that it allows using a presenter's own computer to transmit
   electronic viewgraphs without connecting it to, for example, an
   intranet. The captured image is then displayed along with the
   capturing computer's mouse pointer on the presenter's display using a
   projector. The presenter moves the pointer on the display using a
   regular or maybe a wireless mouse whose location can easily be
   captured by appropriate software running on the capturing computer.

   This document describes an RTP payload format to transmit the pointer
   coordinates captured in one of the ways described above using RTP.
   Although, a mouse can be used as the pointer, this payload format is
   not intended and may not have all functionalities needed to implement
   a  general mouse event transmission mechanism.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3].
ToP   noToC   RFC2862 - Page 3

2. Payload Format

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V=2|P|X| CC |M| PT | sequence number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | timestamp | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | synchronization source (SSRC) identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : contributing source (CSRC) identifiers : +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ |L|M|R| | x-coordinate | | PIN | y-coordinate | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MBZ MBZ Figure 1 - An RTP packet for Real-Time Pointer Fig. 1 shows an RTP packet carrying real-time pointer coordinates. This payload format does not have a payload specific header.

2.1. RTP Header Usage:

Payload Type (PT): The assignment of an RTP payload type for this new packet format is outside the scope of this document, and will not be specified here. It is expected that the RTP profile for a particular class of applications will assign a payload type for this encoding, or if that is not done then a payload type in the dynamic range shall be chosen. Marker (M) bit: Set to one if the pointer icon is changed in this packet. Extension (X) bit: Defined by the RTP profile used. Sequence Number: Set as described in RFC1889 [1]. Timestamp: The sampling time for the pointer location measured by a 90kHz clock. SSRC: Set as described in RFC1889 [1]. CC and CSRC fields are used as described in RFC 1889 [1]. RTCP SHOULD be used as defined in RFC 1889 [1].
ToP   noToC   RFC2862 - Page 4

2.2. Payload:

The pointer's x and y coordinates are measured from the upper left corner of the associated display window. They are represented as a fraction of the corresponding edge length of the display window using 12 bits, positive, fixed point numbers between 0 and (1 - 2^-12). L (left), R (right) and/or M (middle) bits are pointer special effects flags. Their use is application dependent and MUST be established out-of-band. Applications MAY ignore these bits. PIN: Pointer Icon Number (3 bits) selects a pointer icon. The association between the PIN numbers and the icon pictures MUST be established out-of-band. PIN = 0 represents a default pointer icon. Applications which only support a single pointer icon SHOULD set the PIN field to zero. Applications MAY ignore non-zero PIN values on reception, and display a default icon.

3. MIME Media Type Registrations

This document defines a new RTP payload name, "pointer," and associated MIME subtype, "video/pointer."

3.1. Registration of MIME media type video/pointer

MIME media type name: video MIME subtype name: pointer Required parameters: None Optional parameters: None Encoding considerations: Pointer video can be transmitted with RTP as specified in this document. Security considerations: As described in this document. Interoperability considerations: None Published specification: this document. Applications which use this media type: Videoconferencing systems that transmit VUgraphs with a real-time pointer. Additional information: None Magic number(s): None
ToP   noToC   RFC2862 - Page 5
        File extension(s): None
        Macintosh File Type Code(s): None

      Person & email address to contact for further information:
        M. Reha Civanlar
        e-mail: civanlar@research.att.com

      Intended usage: COMMON Author/Change controller:
        M. Reha Civanlar
        e-mail: civanlar@research.att.com

4. Security Considerations

RTP packets using the payload format defined in this specification are subject to the security considerations discussed in the RTP specification [1]. This payload type does not exhibit any significant non-uniformity in the receiver side computational complexity for packet processing to cause a potential denial-of-service threat.

5. References

[1] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real Time Applications", RFC 1889, January 1996. [2] M. R. Civanlar, G. L. Cash, "Networked Viewgraphs - NetVG" Proceedings of The 9th Int. Workshop on Packet Video, http://www.research.att.com/~mrc/PacketVideo99.html. [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
ToP   noToC   RFC2862 - Page 6

6. Authors' Addresses

M. Reha Civanlar AT&T Labs - Research 100 Schultz Drive, Room 3-205 Red Bank, NJ 07701, USA EMail: civanlar@research.att.com Glenn L. Cash AT&T Labs - Research 100 Schultz Drive, Room 3-213 Red Bank, NJ 07701, USA EMail: glenn@research.att.com
ToP   noToC   RFC2862 - Page 7

7. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.