Re: [httpstreaming] [conex] [dispatch] Q-HTTP

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Wed, 17 November 2010 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B879F3A6975; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:01:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.592
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cnBi3nwAqWXE; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:01:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E6B3A695F; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id 788859C; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:02:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F509A; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:02:40 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:02:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
To: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <002a01cb81e1$40e58740$c2b095c0$@com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011112150370.2639@uplift.sw> <> <alpine.DEB.1.10.101116225431> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: httpstreaming <>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [conex] [dispatch] Q-HTTP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:01:57 -0000

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Woundy, Richard wrote:

> Personally, I am not convinced that the HTTP streaming "quality of 
> experience" necessarily implies Internet QoS. But I thought we discuss 
> IETF issues here, not UN issues (or OECD issues).

Some people describe core/distribution congestion as a force of nature 
that should be handled by a bunch of advanced technical means. I don't 
agree with this problem description, thus I guess it's hard to start to 
discuss a "solution" because I see "lack of capacity" should be solved by 
"install more capacity and make sure it can be done cheaply by means of 
making IP equipment low complexity" instead of "let's solve it by making 
the Internet more advanced and complicated so we can gracefully handle the 
advanced complicated network we now don't have the money to build out so 
it doesn't congest".

Since it's next to impossible to quantify the above factors and who is 
"right" (nobody is, it's a matter of opinion and world view), I guess 
that's why we're seeing the discussion going all over the place.

And I disagree that anything I have said indicates this to be a OECD or UN 
issue, it's a matter for the national regulators and politicians.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: