Re: [ppsp] re-charter issue discussion(cont'):transport mechanism

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Tue, 10 April 2012 23:40 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 1131911E810C for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_63=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 7s3npyA3SKKl for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omr14.networksolutionsemail.com (omr14.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A69B11E80DE for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cm-omr10 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr14.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3ANe0Bp014113 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:40:00 -0400
Authentication-Results: cm-omr10 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN)
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from [69.81.143.202] ([69.81.143.202:42911] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by cm-omr10 (envelope-from <wes@mti-systems.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id B3/EA-30492-0D4C48F4; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:40:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4F84C4CD.3040603@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:39:57 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: arno@cs.vu.nl
References: <2012033016511639412036@chinamobile.com> <4F84025C.3040206@cs.vu.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4F84025C.3040206@cs.vu.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] re-charter issue discussion(cont'):transport mechanism
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:40:03 -0000

On 4/10/2012 5:50 AM, Arno Bakker wrote:
> On 30/03/2012 10:53, zhangyunfei wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> To continue the re-charter discussion in PPSP WG meeting, I would like
>> to discuss more on the transport mechanism issue.
>> I happen to know in RTCWeb, the transport protocol between two peer
>> browsers seems to been decided: For media part, srtp/rtp over UDP(I am
>> not quite sure of if it is accurate). For data transmit, Datagrams over
>> SCTP over DTLS over UDP.
>> My question is: If this related to PPSP transport mechanism? Or totally
>> two different things?Any different requirements? Just to provide such
>> info to incur discussion.
> 
> Hi all
> 
> to keep the re-charter discussion brief could we perhaps split the
> discussion into (1) where media transport aspects should be discussed
> and (2) what the transport actually is.
> 
> For (1), I'd like to keep it inside the peer protocol spec, as mentioned
> before.
> 
> For (2): The RTCWEB work is definitely relevant, so thanks for keeping
> us up-to-date, Yunfei. There are of course differences, notably PPSP is
> also about time-shifted streaming, i.e. video-on-demand. This means
> real-time is not always relevant and we also need to think about
> post-view seeding. The latter makes LEDBAT support important.
> Furthermore, sender authentication and privacy may be less important for
> us than in the RTCWEB teleconferencing scenarios.
> Also PPSP is more about one-to-many than RTCWEB, although they may be
> looking at that too.
> 
> I think we should definitely advocate our work in RTCWEB, but in Canada
> they weren't ready for P2P scenarios yet, and I haven't followed their
> progress since.
> 


In my view, PPSP should not be distracted by RTCWEB or
go to any effort to mimic its decisions.  The methods
of operating are very different between the RTCWEB
browser-to-browser media flows between the involved
users and the PPSP method of using a tracker to find
peers in a swarm, and then doing chunk-based retrieval
of the media from the swarm rather than direct from
a source like RTCWEB does.

I am in agreement with Arno's point 1 that media
transport within the peer protocol is highly desirable.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems