[RTW] [dispatch] Charter proposal: The activity hitherto knownas "RTC-WEB at IETF"

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dispatch-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
>> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:23 PM
>> To: Bernard Aboba
>> Cc: dispatch at ietf.org; harald at alvestrand.no; rtc-web at alvestrand.no; tom.taylo at huawei.com
>> Subject: Re: [dispatch] [RTW] Charter proposal: The activity hitherto knownas "RTC-WEB at IETF"
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> 
>>> +1.
>>> 
>>> One place where we could "spend our energy wiser" might be on enabling interoperability
>>> of HTTP transported realtime media.   Although peer-to-peer traffic is more desirable when
>>> possible, "HTTP fallback" is in practice required a significant fraction of the time, due to the
>>> prevalence of highly restrictive firewalls.
>> 
>> I would agree, and that raises the issue of the "wrapper" for HTTP streaming. Note that Apple uses MPEG-2 TS for the
>> wrapper for its live http video streaming.
>> 
>> (  Each media file MUST
>>   be formatted as an MPEG-2 Transport Stream, an MPEG-2 Program Stream,
>>   or an MPEG-2 audio elementary stream  - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-01 )
>> 
>> While this is certainly standards based, I do not think it matches or interoperates with anyone else's HTTP streaming. And, of
>> course, this is an I-D still. Flash also does http streaming, but I believe it uses its own, proprietary, wrapper.
>> 
>> So, is specifying a media transport protocol for http streaming in scope ?
> 
> What you are referring to is not a transport protocol, rather I guess we could call it encapsulation format.
> 
> And for different vendors' systems to interoperate (for http streaming), there needs to be more than just supporting the same encapsulation format. FWIW, many of the methods do use mp4-based fragments unlike Apple (of course with or without their own special boxes). There is already work undertaken in MPEG in this area. IMO, doing the same work but a few years late is not a much wise move.
> 

I would agree (and I wasn't necessarily calling for protocol development, I would prefer rather protocol selection here), but
I don't see a true standard emerging in the wild as yet and so this effort will probably have to spend some time making a selection. 

Regards
Marshall

> -acbegen
> 
>> Regards
>> Marshall
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: stefan.lk.hakansson at ericsson.com
>>>> To: tom.taylo at huawei.com; harald at alvestrand.no; Markus.Isomaki at nokia.com
>>>> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:17:51 +0100
>>>> CC: rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [RTW] [dispatch] Charter proposal: The activity hitherto known as "RTC-WEB at IETF"
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree that at least for the time being it is more fruitful to focus
>>>>> the energy elsewhere. There is plenty of useful work that can be done
>>>>> about media transport (the datagram service and the potential bytestream
>>>>> ) and the associated APIs, and I suggest we focus on that. We can try our
>>>>> luck with the codec thing later on.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree. Codec discussions seem to go on forever, and we could spend our
>>>> energy wiser.
>>>> 
>>>> Stefan
>>>> 
>>>> PS Sorry for answering late, but I did not follow dispatch. I thought all
>>>> related messages would go on rtc-web as well. So those of you who do not
>>>> follow dispatch: perhaps you should look into the dispatch archive.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RTC-Web mailing list
>>>> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
>>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> dispatch at ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>