Re: [httpstreaming] Current Status and Our Goal

Thomas Stockhammer <stockhammer@nomor.de> Tue, 19 October 2010 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <stockhammer@nomor.de>
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 1A3F73A68E3 for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.875
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.875 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.374, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 CHe8wy78sU6h for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de (mo-p00-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E8D3A68A8 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1287526200; l=2838; s=domk; d=nomor.de; h=To:References:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From: Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=QjQkTkhZU0Qgp+0Jhb6U31rITL4=; b=Qae9WBCCv/9IIwsX07XV7LS8csoXocuBSaxfSqvRd+yRycJLA0PLOnMELX7vA/o0M8G awj8jTcII4Nf8iRNjpAqZO0Q7WckWL66xwOWrJmtmKjgviLmEoqvQgDzz7GRuQE6Ty/Ex 8MSOzbbuFgZOK9aLhsRjPS4WzzGCjkcGelU=
X-RZG-AUTH: :P3gLdkugevKirJkjH/RoTtk5THWq6nlFgKpnuMPeiu13+0wBefkJA5cHz4sK4A==
X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00
Received: from [172.16.1.2] (91-67-202-136-dynip.superkabel.de [91.67.202.136]) by post.strato.de (jimi mo62) (RZmta 23.5) with ESMTP id v04e74m9JIwfNA ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:09:54 +0200 (MEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Thomas Stockhammer <stockhammer@nomor.de>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <A3727C89-8DF3-48A7-9B5D-9D11A94930F0@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:09:53 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F840E8B-3605-4F2B-A797-A8873257C140@nomor.de>
References: <00df01cb5de2$2ac49730$4f548a0a@china.huawei.com> <AANLkTimB3-=zWGnT=uq9Qcb-N8Pq+-RR0WMN12BZ9pr4@mail.gmail.com> <03f501cb65a1$50699d70$f13cd850$%roni@huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BEADB@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <03f901cb65a5$7ee4bc80$7cae3580$%roni@huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BEB08@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <074201cb66c1$1a192d50$4f548a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BF360@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <017101cb6924$bc093410$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D5BF70B@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <03ce01cb6b67$fdb9d910$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D689385@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <009c01cb6c03$f2125320$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D689412@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <022c01cb6c0b$5fc75490$30298a0a@china.huawei.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540D68946C@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <051901cb6c38$8b640f30$30 298a0a@china.huawei.com> <62FF99A9-9B06-459F-87B4-416007E80983@csperkins.org> <51D0062B-D4D8-4495-8FC6-E50E5D67086E@cisco.com> <A3727C89-8DF3-48A7-9B5D-9D11A94930F0@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
To: Benjamin Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: httpstreaming@ietf.org, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Current Status and Our Goal
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: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:08:32 -0000

+1

On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Benjamin Niven-Jenkins wrote:

> 
> On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:46, David R Oran wrote:
>> 
>> On Oct 19, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
>> 
>>> On 15 Oct 2010, at 08:14, Qin Wu wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
>>>> 
>>>>> But, in http streaming scenario, the ratio of download/upload (from the client's perspective) is much larger than 1. BTW, if you keep your chunk duration relatively longer, the amount of requests that you will end up sending will be almost nil compared to what you will receive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [Qin]: No, I just compare pull and push with the same chunk duration.
>>>> 
>>>> You can choose whatever chunk size you wanna use. Does not matter. The fact remains the same. Unless someone uses chunks of a few hundreds of ms, it won't matter.
>>>> 
>>>> [Qin]: Suppose 10 chunks is available at the server side, in the pull model, the client need to send at least 10 requests and receive 10 responses. in the push model, the client may only need to send one request and then receive 10 responses. comparing with pull, push model save 9 requests. also if you look at websocket, push has more lightweight header than pull.
>>> 
>>> This is true.  However, by changing to a push model, you also move the responsibility for maintaining state for rate adaptation to the server, rather than the client.  The extra state, and the complexity of running the rate adaptation algorithm, almost certainly outweighs the savings from reduced request processing.
>>> 
>> That is debatable. I personally side with Colin in such a debate, but there are people who do make credible arguments on the other side, and people who ship cost-effective and arguably scalable systems that work that way.
> 
> While that may be true, I doubt they're based on HTTP.
> 
> I thought the pretence of creating this list was to discuss if there was work that IETF could do to improve "HTTP streaming". Changing the fundamental model from pull to push is not improving HTTP streaming it's creating a whole new streaming protocol, which might be a valid thing to do but is a completely different discussion IMO.
> 
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list
> httpstreaming@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming

---
Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89 978980 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com
Nomor Research GmbH  -  Sitz der Gesellschaft: München - Registergericht: München, HRB 165856 – Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE238047637 - Geschäftsführer: Dr. Thomas Stockhammer, Dr. Ingo Viering.