Re: [ppsp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.txt

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Wed, 11 July 2012 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C79B21F8564 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.994
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.994 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h+VTQAgyY+c6 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omr16.networksolutionsemail.com (omr16.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7FE21F8549 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cm-omr11 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr16.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6BGXx0g015304 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:33:59 -0400
Authentication-Results: cm-omr11 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN)
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from [63.226.32.150] ([63.226.32.150:23945] helo=[172.27.250.202]) by cm-omr11 (envelope-from <wes@mti-systems.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 81/BF-04565-6FAADFF4; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:33:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4FFDAAF6.20900@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:33:58 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: arno@cs.vu.nl
References: <20120620060416.20536.93957.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2012062015092544515442@chinamobile.com> <4FFD2967.7080402@cs.vu.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4FFD2967.7080402@cs.vu.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol <ppsp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ppsp>, <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ppsp>
List-Post: <mailto:ppsp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp>, <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:33:29 -0000

On 7/11/2012 3:21 AM, Arno Bakker wrote:
> Good that you mention transports, AFAIK that still needs to be
> discussed. Candidates are:
> 
> * UDP with congestion control (e.g. LEDBAT)
> * RTP
> * Both UDP+cc and RTP
> 
> I see no direct use case of TCP, but IMHO we should not exclude it either.
> 
> Support for RTP may make the standard more appealing to the RTCWEB
> crowd. Perhaps we should ask them for an opinion on this issue.
> Yunfei/Stefano, do you know somebody we could ask?


I would prefer to simply go with UDP+cc and keep it simple.
The RTCWEB approach involves a stack of other crap that
does not seem to be of much value for PPSP; they are not
using purely RTP.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems