Re: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for streaming HTTP?
Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com> Fri, 01 October 2010 18:43 UTC
Return-Path: <henry.sinnreich@gmail.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 527A53A6D08 for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.157
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.157 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.444,
BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 KZG9V3JUWZy4 for
<httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com
[74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBE43A6DF7 for
<httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvg7 with SMTP id 7so1097600pvg.31 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>;
Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:user-agent:date:subject:from
:to:message-id:thread-topic:thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version
:content-type; bh=WF0eF08VrrFR2vPltchRzUCZQ2p1zTBbJC/Z+RmYETg=;
b=SNuPBVCp1wNvg66asXPhCoOVaz5H/IZcPkUWGxvcREStu0G8vqP9Ys6Wc05RbtOVqQ
+wqKxYLq6vPUKWhchlbkzvajfGC3mn7/+eMFmMCpwOX04Vh5kg9CEqv3VeHT+N9KtqSA
6Nce7SN3lDyRzbpJ7WJRxQ+TRSCJhfJgulRg4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic
:thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type;
b=U+dKi5+UW0LfJXJYd7ntp66+Ycw1vHjuQTCoCLJ0iOHeXOKgCMJCwVIxNMUWlVPO5R
iPAqnIioLu7Ba0O0LwCTLRlIXD2FjACzRe+MKmBrikLlMM36Qa5wubaTu0NtS1xn8Exx
7iOMU0XjeOxuxd4vw/5aGPs+cpAfDf8hSCdjQ=
Received: by 10.114.57.13 with SMTP id f13mr6759288waa.101.1285958632382;
Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.34] (cpe-76-184-249-116.tx.res.rr.com
[76.184.249.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
x2sm1128874ybh.17.2010.10.01.11.43.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:43:48 -0500
From: Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
To: "Luby, Michael" <luby@qualcomm.com>,
"httpstreaming@ietf.org" <httpstreaming@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C8CB9614.147AE%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for streaming HTTP?
Thread-Index: ActedoYknOR/8PjHQbi3vQUrdgGyBAADOkWEAMVJjWM=
In-Reply-To: <C8C64DFB.4E3A%luby@qualcomm.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3368785430_1429648"
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for streaming HTTP?
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: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:43:11 -0000
This is not an issue of duplicating work in other SDO, but rather why would an IETF standard be different? Obviously, the business models and the resulting standards of the other SDO stake holders may be, legitimately so, different from the global, open Internet. An informational RFC discussing both the ³why² and the ³how² would be no doubt very useful and interesting. Qin Wu has already mentioned some items. But since I have no idea how to access the documents of the other SDO, their discussions, meeting slides, the decision process, etc., or even find out who the authors and contributors are, such an RFC may not be doable by individual IETF contributors. Example: Some SDO documents have come to my notice where the word ³Internet² was studiously avoided. How can one follow the discussions on how and who came to this editorial direction? Quite troubling in the IETF it would seem. Naïve question: If the ³Internet² does not exist, why have liaison people? The IETF has individual contributors. Never mind the above, there are plenty of reasons to have an Internet standard for streaming HTTP that may differ quite substantially from other SDO. Just think of IPR-free codecs that can be plugged in, vs. the single, heavily licensed video codec I have seen. Which reminds me of similar discussions, meant to avoid an IETF WG for an Internet audio codec. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/codec/ Henry On 9/27/10 3:34 PM, "Luby, Michael" <luby@qualcomm.com> wrote: > A few comments/thoughts. > > (1) The SDOs that are already deeply involved in standardizing OTT HTTP > streaming have worked hard to stay aligned, e.g., 3GPP, MPEG, OIPF. There is > a lot of ongoing coordination between these organizations on HTTP streaming > (DASH dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP), many of the people involved are > working across these organizations, and liaisons are being sent back and forth > to coordinate, etc. For example, they have all adopted the same baseline > standard that was initiated in 3GPP, and features that were developed by MPEG > are being rolled back into 3GPP, etc. It is not clear what the IETF adds in > this sense (or perhaps may subtract?) The attempt is to create one standard > across the different organizations, and not disparate competing standards. > > (2) If there is any effort in this area by the IETF, it would be good to align > with the goal of one common standard. If there is fragmentation, it will not > be good for deployment. For example, I¹ve seen emails on this list that > suggest that the IETF might go in a different direction and use a different > basis other than HTTP, or do something that is based on HTTP but is contrary > to these other standards, and it seems that these directions will only > confuse/slow down any adoption. > > (3) If the IETF decides to go off in a different direction and not use HTTP > 1.1 as the basis, to avoid confusion it would be really helpful not to call > this HTTP streaming, but instead call it some other name that is suitable for > whatever is being standardized. > > Mike Luby > > > > On 9/27/10 12:00 PM, "httpstreaming-request@ietf.org" > <httpstreaming-request@ietf.org> wrote: > >> If you have received this digest without all the individual message >> attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list >> subscription. To do so, go to >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming >> >> Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get >> MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option >> globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. >> >> >> >> Send httpstreaming mailing list submissions to >> httpstreaming@ietf.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> httpstreaming-request@ietf.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> httpstreaming-owner@ietf.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of httpstreaming digest..." > > > _______________________________________________ > httpstreaming mailing list > httpstreaming@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
- [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for streaming … Henry Sinnreich
- [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for streaming … Luby, Michael
- Re: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for stream… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for stream… Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)
- Re: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for stream… Qin Wu
- Re: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for stream… Qin Wu
- Re: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for stream… Henry Sinnreich