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

Ben Niven-Jenkins <> Sun, 07 November 2010 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD573A67CC for <>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 08:15:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.349
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pca9N6hY3SuQ for <>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 08:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5FC63A679C for <>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 08:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <>) id 1PF7u7-0001av-Ok; Sun, 07 Nov 2010 16:15:41 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:15:35 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [AVT] Fw: Agenda and Slides
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: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 16:15:24 -0000

On 7 Nov 2010, at 16:04, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:

> Interestingly, several other lists were copied to this email but not the main httpstreaming list. I would recommend dropping other lists. One comment inline.

Ah! I just replied to the original e-mail which appears not to have included the list, thanks for including it & snipping the other lists.

>> From: [] 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.