Re: [httpstreaming] [dispatch] Q-HTTP

Mark Nottingham <> Tue, 09 November 2010 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84313A6A12; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:56:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=x tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id efMhhDNK6Z46; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:56:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D4528C0E5; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52A23509B3; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 21:56:35 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-19--420936107
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:56:32 +1100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: httpstreaming <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [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: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:56:33 -0000

Without going into the details of the proposal itself --

"Q-HTTP" is a *horrible* name. It will confuse many people -- is it a replacement for HTTP? An enhancement to HTTP? Etc.

Please change the name and proposed URI scheme ASAP; it'll make it a lot easier to socialise if it does gain traction.

Furthermore, based on this statement:

>    Q-HTTP does not establish multimedia sessions and it does not transport application data.

... the only thing it shares with HTTP is the syntax of the messages. Lots of IETF experience shows that basing new protocols on HTTP syntax isn't such a good idea; if you want an easy-to-parse format, how about JSON?

Please don't take this as criticism of the proposal itself -- I'm excited to see so many people working in this area.


On 09/11/2010, at 3:33 AM, GARCIA ARANDA, JOSE JAVIER (JOSE JAVIER) wrote:

> Hi Qin and all,
> Now the Q-HTTP draft is accesible at 
> In addition, i have attached in this email a FAQ document for easier understanding of the protocol. This document clarifies the philosophy and shows different alternatives for the implementation
> Regards and thanks
> - Jose javier
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Qin Wu [] 
> Enviado el: lunes, 08 de noviembre de 2010 15:35
> CC: httpstreaming
> Asunto: Re: [dispatch] Q-HTTP
> Hi, Joes Javier:
> Your bring a quite interesting draft. We have a Bar BOF on HTTP streaming on Wednesday evening, Emenrald room, which aims at  building new area and working out appropriate working scope to offer more efficient transport and better QoE. One of key issues we are ready to address is QOE improvement. If you are interested, please join our discussion.
> Also you can track the following link for our meeting agenda, location and time:
> Regards!
> -Qin
> ----- Original Message -----
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:14 PM
> Subject: [dispatch] Q-HTTP
> Hi experts, 
> We are a group of researchers which have written a draft about QoS measurements & reactions. We believe the standardization of this topic could benefit internet community in the coming years, for example for virtualization of videogames through intenet. We would like to receive comments and some feedback and also oppinions about the target area, because we believe that the draft fits into Real-time App and infrastructure Area scope, but currently the draft is in "looking for an area" state
>   The draft describes Q-HTTP (Quality HTTP) , which is an application level protocol based on HTTP and SDP associated to a new specific uri "httpq://..." intended for carrying out quality negotiation and quality measurement between two parties. The final goal of this 
> process is to verify that a certain application which depends on bandwidth, latency, jitter parameters, will work under current network conditions. Our idea tackles the fact that real-time services (virtualization, on line gaming, video, voice) nowadays are increasing and that in an internet (or WAN) environment propagation conditions may change with time for our connection; what works for most applications may not work for real-time ones and they should have a standard way of negotiating and verifying their requirements. Q-HTTP also provides a mechanism of account/alerting when required constraints are not met after the measurement is carried out.
> Implementation details on the actions to be triggered upon reception/detection of QoS alerts exchanged by the protocol are out of scope of this draft, it is application dependant (e.g. increase quality, reduce bit-rate) or even network dependant (e.g. change connection's quality profile).
> Comments? Thanks
> - Jose Javier
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> httpstreaming mailing list

Mark Nottingham