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

Marshall Eubanks <> Wed, 17 November 2010 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259F23A6781; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:51:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.603
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.996, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4oBs7eeYQ4Dk; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3060C3A6767; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2AC793F3B48; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:52:22 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Marshall Eubanks <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:52:21 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <002a01cb81e1$40e58740$c2b095c0$@com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011112150370.2639@uplift.sw> <> <alpine.DEB.1.10.101116225431> <> <> <> <alpine.DEB.>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
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 21:51:38 -0000

On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> 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".

This is of course an "age-old" (well, 20-30 years) religious disagreement. Those that come out of the circuit switched telco world tend to think, QOS. Those that come out of the packet switched Internet world tend to think "provision properly." I don't expect to see such arguments cease in my lifetime. 

Regards (and all I will say on this topic on this list)

> 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:
> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list