Re: [httpstreaming] httpstreaming Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1

Ning Zong <zongning@huawei.com> Thu, 04 November 2010 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <zongning@huawei.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 BBAB93A69CE for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 pRZhvXcsBA4J for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B237528B797 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LBC009S94S8KJ@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 08:45:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LBC005FA4S8CI@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 08:45:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z63316 ([10.138.41.58]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LBC00G6X4S7UA@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Nov 2010 08:45:44 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 08:45:46 +0800
From: Ning Zong <zongning@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <AANLkTimaM6ULdmgSwexSdQwtz=evJcakfL97U-cbnBnp@mail.gmail.com>
To: 'Hasnaa Moustafa' <hasnaa.moustafa@gmail.com>, httpstreaming@ietf.org
Message-id: <006101cb7bb9$9e4cf180$3a298a0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_4NYzyi36zvSYRR9PY16PkA)"
Thread-index: Act7U1zSxBFoylToT7mxeDcexW+GOAAZfgxg
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] httpstreaming Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1
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: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 00:45:50 -0000

It’s called “IESG room” (a dedicated room reserved to IESG members during
the IETF meeting) and I think you can find it in the meeting venue.

 

  _____  

From: httpstreaming-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:httpstreaming-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Hasnaa Moustafa
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:33 PM
To: httpstreaming@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] httpstreaming Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1

 

Would you please precise which room exactly?

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: httpstreaming@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:02:52 +0800
Subject: [httpstreaming] Time and location for HTTP streaming bar BoF
Hi, experts:
We have got one IESG room for our Bar BOF with the AD's kind help. Thank
Alex for arranging this for us.
As we voted before through Doodle, the Bar BoF is scheduled on
Wednesday(10th,Nov) evening
from 19:30PM to 21:00PM.
If you are interested in this work or would like to contribute, please join
our discussion.
If you have any other suggestions, please let us know.

Regards!
-Qin



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: httpstreaming@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:19:58 +0800
Subject: [httpstreaming] Meeting Agenda preparation for Bar BOF of HTTP
Streaming

Hi, Folks:

This is just a quick note to let you know that preparations are proceeding
for 

HTTP Streaming Bar BOF meeting.

Based on what we have on the table and some suggestions from experts on this
list, we think at least three topics should be covered in the meeting
agenda:

a. Goal and Scope Discussion 

b. Use Case discussion
c. Gap Analysis

if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ping the list. We
will soon create meeting agenda based on your feedbacks.

 

Regards!

-Qin



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:54:27 +0800
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Efficient manifest push (Re: FW: New Version
Notification for draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01)
Hi,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>
To: "Qin Wu" <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Cc: <httpstreaming@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Efficient manifest push (Re: FW: New Version
Notification for draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01)



On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
>
> [Qin]: Sounds like a good idea to me. I think this is one way to build the
interoperable solution for concurrent live streaming viewing with backwards
compability to existing cache and client, which may bring the advantage of
alleviating server load.  But I am not sure the MIME subtype has the right
semantic to do this.

[MW] Can you elaborate ?

[Qin]: That's what I intepret from what you propose for efficient manifest
delivery.
As you said, we may need to define new MIME type for manifest push, I agree.
Futhermore, I think it will be a good idea to use such feature also for
media stream efficient delivery when
concurrent streams needs to be served by the same web server and the old
chunk that has been playout and in aging conditions
need to be dropped.

The idea would be if the smart cache in between knows the semantics of new
MIME type, this smart
caches can choose to replace/update the previous chunk with the new chunk
and
only serve the newest chunk to all the concurrent live streaming viewers.

For details, we may discuss this in Beijing meeting.

> We may need some new MIME subtype and new behaviors on how to process it.
>
> ...Mark
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:51 PM, Thomas Stockhammer wrote:
>
>> Ning,
>>
>> thanks ....
>>
>> I recognized that you only replied to some of my comments.
>> Does this mean that you agree/disagree with the remaining ones?
>>
>> Inline some more with [T] ... [\T]
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>> - I am not sure I understand the term "is encrypted into files"
>>> [ZN]: I mean "use file with media container" here.
>>
>> [T]  I do not understand this either! [\T]
>>
>>> - What do you mean "normal text file"?
>>> [ZN]: traditional web page (e.g. html file).
>>
>> [T] we should be much more careful with terminology [\T]
>>
>>> - The intelligence in the Adaptive Streaming over HTTP is almost
>>> exclusively in the client, there is no negotiation
>>> [ZN]: Sorry for confusion, "negotiation" should be "massage exchange".
>>
>> [T]
>> First I hope this is a typo, otherwise I get more curious ...!
>> Secondly, I am still not clear what needs to be done beyond regular
>> http connections
>> [\T]
>>
>>> 5.2)
>>> - It is not correct that the 3GPP MPD needs to be updated even for
>>> live. If you use a template mode, the MPD stays static until some
>>> "unforeseen" event occurs. Client and Content Preparation have agreed
>>> on rules to construct URIs.
>>> - If necessary, the MPD update happens asynchronously to the media
>>> decoding, so this is not considered to be a problem.
>>> [ZN]: I didn't intend to state that pull model doesn't work. My
>>> point is,
>>> why not investigating the possible usage of push model in certain
>>> cases
>>> without experiencing the above mentioned "unforeseen" event or
>>> asynchronous
>>> updates?
>>
>> [T]
>> "Push" is a very very broad term. In Web applications you can for
>> example use AJAX or RSS/ATOM like techniques for push-like updates. If
>> you use conditional GET for regular polling, this is very efficient.
>> The MPD updates in 3GPP work in a similar manner. If you use polling,
>> conditional GETs and templates, you are extremely efficient. We should
>> really understand what we mean by push model? HTTP-based delivery is
>> rich and provides many successfully deployed options.
>>
>> Should you really refer to something completely different such as IP
>> multicast, then I would feel very very uncomfortable.
>> [\T]
>>
>>> - There is for sure mechanisms to deliver important packets more
>>> reliably in HTTP - you just request it earlier. In anticipation of
>>> switching a smart client may also prepare such data. The client is
>>> intelligent.
>>> [ZN]: Well, I think this startup issue doesn't like the pre-fetch
>>> which is
>>> of course still valuable to improve playback. IMO, it is hard to
>>> predict
>>> which channel the user will switch to in the next moment, hence it
>>> is not
>>> reasonable to request important packets for other channels. Did I
>>> misunderstand you?
>>
>> [T]
>> I would not be worried to have the MPD and the initialization segment
>> of the two neighboring channels ready in my device. Again, the client
>> can be very smart, especially as it does have access to all the
>> information.
>>
>> In general, I do not disagree that we can create more detailed use
>> cases for environments in which we envision that HTTP streaming will
>> be used. This may include live multi-channel environments. However, we
>> should not conclude per se that the existing technologies do have a
>> problem.
>> [\T]
>>
>>> - 3GPP defines QoE metrics that can reused also for HTTP Streaming.
>>> there will also be efforts in MPEG in including QoE.
>>> [ZN]: I am not proposing to focus on defining QoE metrics, but
>>> looking on
>>> the protocols to report such metrics, like RTCP. We will support the
>>> work in
>>> 3GPP/MPEG and cooperate with them to see how to capsulate the
>>> metrics in a
>>> series of messages.
>>
>> [T]
>> What do you mean with "capsulate"?
>> Also, can you be more specific what metrics there are in RTCP that can
>> also be used in HTTP Streaming. I consider that anything dealing with
>> packet loss is irrelevant. I also do not see the relevance of sending
>> regular 5 seconds receiver reports as the content is static and
>> adaptation will not happen. Some reporting on Media Presentation level
>> may be sufficient, for example when the presentation has been completed.
>> [\T]
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89
>> 978980 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com
<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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> httpstreaming mailing list
>> httpstreaming@ietf.org 


>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
>>
>

> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list
> httpstreaming@ietf.org 


> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>om>, "Severa, Michael J (Mike)"
<mike.severa@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:51:45 +0800
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Efficient manifest push (Re: FW: New Version
Notification for draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01)
Hi,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>
To: "Severa, Michael J (Mike)" <mike.severa@alcatel-lucent.com>
Cc: "Qin Wu" <sunseawq@huawei.com>om>; <httpstreaming@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Efficient manifest push (Re: FW: New Version
Notification for draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01)


Server-sent events defines a stream format for a sequence of DOM events.
Essentially each is a set of name/value pairs. It's a very simple text
syntax. Not really suitable for manifest updates or video stream segments.
But mainly it does not carry any semantics that would enable cache
optimizations.

[Qin]: I think it is possible to use server-sent event over HTTP or using
dedicated server-push protocol to push text based manifest or some metadata
for current playlist to the client since the manifest can be in different
format.
But it is true, server push event has no semantics to carry video streaming
segments, since video streaming segement is binary data rather than textual
data.

...Mark

On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Severa, Michael J (Mike) wrote:

> Hi. Check out server-sent events in HTML5. Essentially what is described
here, though intended more for the application layer than the media layer.
With a decoder interface at the application layer it would probably be
possible to do this now by using that feature.
>
> Mike
> ________________________________________
> From: httpstreaming-bounces@ietf.org [httpstreaming-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Qin Wu [sunseawq@huawei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:02 PM
> To: Mark Watson; httpstreaming@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Efficient manifest push (Re: FW: New Version
Notification for      draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01)
>
> Hi,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>
> To: <httpstreaming@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 3:17 AM
> Subject: [httpstreaming] Efficient manifest push (Re: FW: New Version
Notification for draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01)
>
>
> Here is an idea sparked by Thomas' mention below of AJAX and RSS push
services.
>
> In these services the client establishes a long-lived HTTP connection to a
server on which it sends a single request. The response comes back in
chunks, over time, enabling the server to "push" new content as it becomes
available. Generally caches and proxies are transparent to this, although I
think it does not work with some older proxies which expect to receive the
whole response from upstream before returning anything to the client.
Perhaps these are all gone by now. But anyway, the "chunks" cannot really be
cached as the proxy has no idea what they are.
>
> In the case of a document, such as a manifest, which is being periodically
updated, or a sequence of different files, one could very simply expose
these semantics in a standard way, which would enable caches to do their
thing.
>
> For example, suppose we define a new MIME type, multipart/versions, where
each part of the multipart MIME response is a different version of the
originally requested resource. A smart cache receiving a request for this
resource can cache the "parts" as they arrive, each replacing the previously
cached version. It can serve multiple incoming persistent connections with
one upstream persistent connection, providing scalability. It would be
transparent to existing caches. Clients would indicate their support in the
Accept header and clients which did not support this mode would just poll
the resource in the usual way with conditional GET requests.
>
> All that would be required from a standards perspective would be
definition of the multipart/versions MIME type.
>
> Maybe this is not new. I could easily imagine CDNs do this kind of thing
internally already.
>
> Similarly, one could imagine a multipart/sequence MIME type where the
parts form a sequence of objects. The client requests an object and (if it
indicates support of the multipart/sequence MIME type) gets back that object
and subsequent ones in the sequence (with their file names). Again, smart
caches could optimise for scalability, caching the parts as separate
objects. This could help with delivery of segments in the live case, but
again maintaining backwards-compatibility. Again, perhaps CDNs already do
something like this internally.
>
> I'm not proposing to progress these ideas, just thought they were
interesting.
>
> [Qin]: Sounds like a good idea to me. I think this is one way to build the
interoperable solution for concurrent live streaming viewing with backwards
compability to existing cache and client, which may bring the advantage of
alleviating server load.  But I am not sure the MIME subtype has the right
semantic to do this. We may need some new MIME subtype and new behaviors on
how to process it.
>
> ...Mark
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:51 PM, Thomas Stockhammer wrote:
>
>> Ning,
>>
>> thanks ....
>>
>> I recognized that you only replied to some of my comments.
>> Does this mean that you agree/disagree with the remaining ones?
>>
>> Inline some more with [T] ... [\T]
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>> - I am not sure I understand the term "is encrypted into files"
>>> [ZN]: I mean "use file with media container" here.
>>
>> [T]  I do not understand this either! [\T]
>>
>>> - What do you mean "normal text file"?
>>> [ZN]: traditional web page (e.g. html file).
>>
>> [T] we should be much more careful with terminology [\T]
>>
>>> - The intelligence in the Adaptive Streaming over HTTP is almost
>>> exclusively in the client, there is no negotiation
>>> [ZN]: Sorry for confusion, "negotiation" should be "massage exchange".
>>
>> [T]
>> First I hope this is a typo, otherwise I get more curious ...!
>> Secondly, I am still not clear what needs to be done beyond regular
>> http connections
>> [\T]
>>
>>> 5.2)
>>> - It is not correct that the 3GPP MPD needs to be updated even for
>>> live. If you use a template mode, the MPD stays static until some
>>> "unforeseen" event occurs. Client and Content Preparation have agreed
>>> on rules to construct URIs.
>>> - If necessary, the MPD update happens asynchronously to the media
>>> decoding, so this is not considered to be a problem.
>>> [ZN]: I didn't intend to state that pull model doesn't work. My
>>> point is,
>>> why not investigating the possible usage of push model in certain
>>> cases
>>> without experiencing the above mentioned "unforeseen" event or
>>> asynchronous
>>> updates?
>>
>> [T]
>> "Push" is a very very broad term. In Web applications you can for
>> example use AJAX or RSS/ATOM like techniques for push-like updates. If
>> you use conditional GET for regular polling, this is very efficient.
>> The MPD updates in 3GPP work in a similar manner. If you use polling,
>> conditional GETs and templates, you are extremely efficient. We should
>> really understand what we mean by push model? HTTP-based delivery is
>> rich and provides many successfully deployed options.
>>
>> Should you really refer to something completely different such as IP
>> multicast, then I would feel very very uncomfortable.
>> [\T]
>>
>>> - There is for sure mechanisms to deliver important packets more
>>> reliably in HTTP - you just request it earlier. In anticipation of
>>> switching a smart client may also prepare such data. The client is
>>> intelligent.
>>> [ZN]: Well, I think this startup issue doesn't like the pre-fetch
>>> which is
>>> of course still valuable to improve playback. IMO, it is hard to
>>> predict
>>> which channel the user will switch to in the next moment, hence it
>>> is not
>>> reasonable to request important packets for other channels. Did I
>>> misunderstand you?
>>
>> [T]
>> I would not be worried to have the MPD and the initialization segment
>> of the two neighboring channels ready in my device. Again, the client
>> can be very smart, especially as it does have access to all the
>> information.
>>
>> In general, I do not disagree that we can create more detailed use
>> cases for environments in which we envision that HTTP streaming will
>> be used. This may include live multi-channel environments. However, we
>> should not conclude per se that the existing technologies do have a
>> problem.
>> [\T]
>>
>>> - 3GPP defines QoE metrics that can reused also for HTTP Streaming.
>>> there will also be efforts in MPEG in including QoE.
>>> [ZN]: I am not proposing to focus on defining QoE metrics, but
>>> looking on
>>> the protocols to report such metrics, like RTCP. We will support the
>>> work in
>>> 3GPP/MPEG and cooperate with them to see how to capsulate the
>>> metrics in a
>>> series of messages.
>>
>> [T]
>> What do you mean with "capsulate"?
>> Also, can you be more specific what metrics there are in RTCP that can
>> also be used in HTTP Streaming. I consider that anything dealing with
>> packet loss is irrelevant. I also do not see the relevance of sending
>> regular 5 seconds receiver reports as the content is static and
>> adaptation will not happen. Some reporting on Media Presentation level
>> may be sufficient, for example when the presentation has been completed.
>> [\T]
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Dr. Thomas Stockhammer (CEO) || stockhammer@nomor.de || phone +49 89
>> 978980 02 || cell +491725702667 || http://www.nomor-research.com
<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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> httpstreaming mailing list
>> httpstreaming@ietf.org 


>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
>>
>

> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list
> httpstreaming@ietf.org 


> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming

> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list
> httpstreaming@ietf.org 


> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming
>



_______________________________________________
httpstreaming mailing list
httpstreaming@ietf.org 


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming