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

Ning Zong <zongning@huawei.com> Sun, 07 November 2010 16:23 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 631EF3A679C for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 08:23:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, 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 CSmywFPmnx-m for <httpstreaming@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 08:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814A73A6403 for <httpstreaming@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 08:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LBI00MKYW70M2@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:23:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LBI0039ZW705J@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for httpstreaming@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:23:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z-20684ca876cc4 ([125.35.86.138]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LBI009GAW70G7@szxml01-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:23:24 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:23:26 +0800
From: Ning Zong <zongning@huawei.com>
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>, Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>, Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
Message-id: <0LBI009GBW70G7@szxml01-in.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Foxmail 5.0 [en]
Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
Cc: "httpstreaming@ietf.org" <httpstreaming@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [AVT] Fw: Agenda and Slides
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: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 16:23:17 -0000

Hi, Ali,

Thanks for droping other lists, let's keep one (httpstreaming) list as major. See inline.
  
======= At 2010-11-08, 00:04:15 you 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.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins
>> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 11:54 PM
>> To: Qin Wu
>> Cc: hybi@ietf.org; avt@ietf.org; fecframe@ietf.org; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [AVT] Fw: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides
>> 
>> 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.

[Ning Zong]: I agree with you that if the streaming application wants to achieve such kind of differenetiation in E2E way, it is an implementation issue that usually doesn't require interoperability & standardization. But if we want to put this treatment in the network (e.g. intermediary nodes), the standard way (e.g. marking the packets from whatever application servers they were sent) could a better choice... Again, we are quite open to discuss other possible way for such treatment.


>
>-acbegen
>_______________________________________________
>httpstreaming mailing list
>httpstreaming@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
			
Ning Zong
zongning@huawei.com
2010-11-08