[httpstreaming] Why a new standard for streaming HTTP?
Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com> Mon, 27 September 2010 16:24 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 02B133A6B4C for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>;
Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.998,
BAYES_50=0.001, 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 R6cdSDAR6Dta for
<httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com
[209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6E03A6BB7 for
<httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so3574780fxm.31 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>;
Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:24:59 -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:cc:message-id:thread-topic:thread-index:mime-version :content-type;
bh=yvooGByOIAr6CoJofYuwsNKOgraQEGHEOAyapDp2/+o=;
b=cem0m2sY7gLyEu86IzfEHEhmipQY9hjo2ycM3MGU/Dx73IpaeV1RfTQfYKitY10VHu
WLmNS0HAYPuTj7U1NlhIdcJ22yFtZ5hEg76K7vLNuoLCJYEU/e8UtfUMeXHEoOAZuBvq
ChLmRI7EGo86yvTziyEwBDJYXENmFXPnSub6Q=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic
:thread-index:mime-version:content-type;
b=xWksvV9EsCr7cOzpCOwMcqKIpS6YLdS6DOudl4mEPf1KHfH6r4A1gDVuspSgh/LW3V
nvf0hZ8eOCmRMqnD51KZyLdYaumErBKkGW/NvRa7tYyUeom/ZsoN09X2vee51xqoAHvo
PxmI4BfCf5dDR/RwJIPxX1hioVaka7iPgMBjs=
Received: by 10.239.168.65 with SMTP id j1mr625911hbe.114.1285604698888;
Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:24:58 -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
a15sm1500046vci.13.2010.09.27.09.24.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:24:53 -0500
From: Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <C8C62F85.1459A%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Why a new standard for streaming HTTP?
Thread-Index: ActeYIO4vLMB5SvksUS7ektJvr3vHg==
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3368431497_12519432"
Cc: httpstreaming@ietf.org
Subject: [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: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:24:28 -0000
Given the rapid rollout of HDTV over streaming HTTP in the market and the huge traffic it generates, an IETF standard is highly desirable. Most large content providers state their HTDV and other content (such as SW distribution) is delivered over standard HTTP 1.1. * So is there anything to standardize at all? * If yes concretely what items? * Examples of usage scenarios that require a new protocol or extensions, specifically such as...? Arguments for if/why/how to impact the huge infrastructure that has been proven to work well and is clearly accepted as is¹ by the application developers - the critical stakeholders. This infrastructure is very expensive and hard to change. This is the reason the added value has moved up into the application layer, where developers are not constrained by the infrastructure: Web browsers (admittedly a moving target) Web servers and CDN. At the cost of peering bandwidth... The I-D: draft-wu-http-streaming-optimization is a good start and could actually also address the issues ³what is the problem² in way that speaks to CDN operators, browser and application developers and ISPs. Should it be extended to also provide a gap analysis? Or just a table for now, to discuss during the coming BOF? To stay focused on the real world, to attract the players in the industry (and less the habitual RFC writers) and to make the proposed WG successful, input is required IMO first and foremost from: 1. Streaming media browser and application developers 2. CDN operators 3. Other stakeholders such as ISPs concerned about interconnect bandwidth, proliferating CDN servers and network equipment providers. As mentioned on the list, closed network folks are better served in other SDO (IP works so well in a context: the Internet. It is the missing word from so many of their documents). Last, but not least, observing the admirable flexibility of the hybi WG in redirecting their work, this future WG may also have to be flexible and if so warranted to refocus, leave HTTP alone (it is handled in the httpbis WG), see what would be more helpful to standardize in the application layer, in the HTTP payload, such as metadata. A whole list for the required expertise to do this work comes to mind: * From the Web industry and from experts that have made streaming HTTP happen * From ISPs that worry about peering bandwidth and co-locating so many different edge CDN servers Scheduling two successive BOFs seems to be a good idea. Get all these folks together on how to best coordinate the combined effort. Henry Freshly inspired by the new http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol/ ==================== On 9/25/10 2:33 AM, "Daniel Park" <soohongp@gmail.com> wrote: > Good to see this activity within IETF and highly welcome. > > As you described below, there are already several SDO activities, and > particularly they have their own direction and schedule toward the market. > http-adaptive streaming (MS) and http-live streaming (Apple) are already > implemented in the commercial level. > > I believe, IETF should pay attention to the coordination among the existing > activities/solutions, and particularly clarify the role for each in order not > to make a duplication. Otherwise, this activity will be very confused in the > market. Why ? It is because IETF rides in the train too late unfortunately. > > For doing that, gap analysis on the existing methods is the first, then we > will be able to see which areas should be done by IETF based on the results of > analysis. This direction seems very acceptable to me. > > Anyway, I support, and hope to move it forward quickly. > > > Daniel
- [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