IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mops] Low latency protocol comparision

Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <finlayson@live555.com>
X-Original-To: mops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E423A0B76 for <mops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xfaquBXVlO62 for <mops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us.live555.com (us.live555.com [52.8.240.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 296DC3A0B85 for <mops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.live555.com [IPv6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1]) by us.live555.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 06SJ2Esh049234 for <mops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:02:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from finlayson@live555.com)
From: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 07:02:14 +1200
References: <CAHgZEq4iQx0Un2N_rSOPafDCqzWxO_y_dX3JzZ=nw3=hbhinRQ@mail.gmail.com> <17635DFD-B536-4B22-8A5D-314BCBEFF19C@nbcuni.com> <CAHgZEq738OMiXwsuDuz22zR2tsF+hX8gUNgFsq1262F9rYJcvg@mail.gmail.com> <7D14F27F-5914-46EC-9E27-9A61D3CEF820@haivision.com> <CAHgZEq7W6eXNvD246veeDZVODh123o+q=rghXtPauXWOf+jzLw@mail.gmail.com> <CF90C2E6-3FB0-4FDC-B46E-B4688B5423B0@thinkingcat.com> <CAJU8_nXEv=ezu=25oCs_=rCKyHpJuDk2cFFLCb7m_X0=G8oKng@mail.gmail.com> <QB1PR01MB3826C7AB8B98C00C3938B68BB2730@QB1PR01MB3826.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: "mops@ietf.org" <mops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <QB1PR01MB3826C7AB8B98C00C3938B68BB2730@QB1PR01MB3826.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-Id: <73DC917C-835C-4F98-8FB0-4968BE58F486@live555.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/BhRKKJ4xi6YR0C1bXH0u_PHwZs0>
Subject: Re: [Mops] Low latency protocol comparision
X-BeenThere: mops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media OPerationS <mops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mops>, <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mops/>
List-Post: <mailto:mops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops>, <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:03:10 -0000

According to this Wikipedia page
	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable_Internet_Stream_Transport
there’s another protocol - “RIST” - that’s "intended as a more reliable successor to Secure Reliable Transport, and as an open alternative to proprietary commercial options…”

If that’s the case, shouldn’t the IETF be focused on documenting/standardizing *this* protocol, rather than SRT?
	

Ross Finlayson
Live Networks, Inc.
http://www.live555.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email