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

[Harald Alvestrand]

Another way (that I know is in production) is to use RTP with a thin 
shim layer (length fields) to provide packet separation, straight over 
TCP. If we are certain we have to support RTP-over-UDP, that might be 
the solution that has the lowest extra implementation cost over the UDP 
solution.

But I suspect this will have to  be decided based on a set of 
requirements, not just a beauty contest.

What is the added value of the MPEG-2 wrappers?

On 01/17/11 18:23, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> 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 ?
>
> 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
>