IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [httpstreaming] [AVT] Fw: Agenda and Slides

Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <wenboz@google.com>
X-Original-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B393A6903 for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 01:17:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QN3DjhY5Y1ol for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 01:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38CE13A6929 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 01:17:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oA89HbrH026568 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 01:17:38 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1289207858; bh=da0isUprE/9dfy6jDM+emhF/jU0=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=e4G85+vVYBj+V+H4Plcl2i7TFW1aqwHTFRplWV4cq6n5WPOOPEtcjKB0IEeuJduzG oLpNVSYp2vhLxLdnmY/SA==
Received: from yxk8 (yxk8.prod.google.com [10.190.3.136]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oA89Ha9c031181 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 01:17:36 -0800
Received: by yxk8 with SMTP id 8so3337308yxk.33 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 01:17:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5/qUoLU27vwK9Nkkc5GSq5nsj6RhUZZrgWQdY6WzfVc=; b=HwRNmDS/JKorti/+TH/0zvr6f39/1i95QE4UfPUuf3LrLekrdigbADTGd30zHsccDe HV3GFNPHB8PsqSTo0Rpw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=I3hYTdWc7gM6dPzXM+9XAPsBmWwkqOKwJDRXtjGPULJkuYeSqf67to3+KKXWjb3dg5 /+DXCszY7ej/zw7Qyg8w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.180.12 with SMTP id c12mr4969446agf.11.1289207854495; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 01:17:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.205.9 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 01:17:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D9B4262@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
References: <249792B19B4845578D9BDC3F77C12D68@china.huawei.com> <58D167AC-E817-4256-88D0-42E36492C562@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D9B4260@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <3151D5E6-E534-4C1D-978E-7F214B31DFB2@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <068E7ECD-1435-402A-BC1E-3ADCBF023BC7@csperkins.org> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D9B4262@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:17:34 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTik+Q8zibcghgjKuOhHnOeK0Cy_MD4_4vTzEghC6@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016362847763578b104948718d8
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: httpstreaming@ietf.org, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [AVT] Fw: Agenda and Slides
X-BeenThere: httpstreaming@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <httpstreaming.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/httpstreaming>
List-Post: <mailto:httpstreaming@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming>, <mailto:httpstreaming-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:17:19 -0000

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) <abegen@cisco.com>wrote;wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@csperkins.org]
> > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 12:36 AM
> > To: Ben Niven-Jenkins
> > Cc: Ali C. Begen (abegen); httpstreaming@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [AVT] Fw: Agenda and Slides
> >
> > On 8 Nov 2010, at 00:15, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> > > On 7 Nov 2010, at 16:04, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> > ...
> > >>> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins
> > >>> Colleagues,
> > >>>
> > >>> Reading the slides I'd like to make some comments in advance of the
> bar-bof, we can discuss them more via the mailing
> > list
> > >>> or in the bar-BoF itself.
> > >>>
> > >>> HTTP_Stream_1.ppt Slide 14:
> > >>>
> > >>> "
> > >>> No distinction regular HTTP traffic from HTTP Streaming traffic
> > >>> Disadvantage:
> > >>>  Transport streaming media in the same way as web page
> > >>>  transport Streaming media has no priority to be delivered/processed
> first
> > >>> "
> > >>>
> > >>> This is not correct, it is possible to apply different treatment to
> HTTP Streaming traffic Vs "regular" web page traffic, e.g.
> > by
> > >>> the server setting different TOS/DSCP for streaming Vs "web" traffic.
> > >>
> > >> If the network will not respect to these code points (which is the
> case in the open Internet), this won’t help but the servers
> > themselves can prioritize anything they want to in their scheduling or
> processing. But, I am having difficulty in understanding
> > why this is relevant to a standardization work. It looks to me as a
> product feature differentiation.
> > >
> > > Agreed. IMO this is purely a deployment/implementation issue and not
> something that needs any standardisation.
> >
> > It *might* make sense if the aim were to add an HTTP header to mark HTTP
> streaming requests, so that a web proxy treated
> > them differently? (i.e., differentiation at the HTTP service layer, not
> at the network layer).
>
> Sure, but that does require changes in the proxies. And if we start going
> down that path, there are many, probably better, things that we can do.
>
Isn't this one of biggest advantages of using HTTP, i.e. services are
allowed to define/advise special semantics at the protocol-level without
breaking the transport-level compatibility.  I am glad that DPI was even
mentioned.

- Wenbo


> -acbegen
>
> > Colin
>
> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list
> httpstreaming@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email