Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service

[Serge Lachapelle <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cullen,

I agree with your push back.

Focus is very important. Audio and video already present a huge challenge.
(signalling, network, web developer friendly API, security, browser
integration...)

Also, I think that there is a real risk in introducing "duplicate"
functionality in the browser as it may confuse web developers. There is a
lot going on in HTML5...

In my mind, this is "version 2.0" stuff.

/Serge


On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 17:51, Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> I'd like to push back on the reliable service. I've yet to hear a use case
> for it that was real time. It's very hard to do a reliable real time
> protocol and we have seen zero proposal for this. For non real time data,
> just dump it in dropbox of whatever your equivalent is and don't do it peer
> to peer. Unless someone has a real need, and wants to put forward a
> proposal, I don't see a need to focus energy on this right now. I'd rather
> work on the thing everyone agrees they do need which is the unreliable
> transfer.
>
> Cullen <in my individaul contribut role>
>
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 8:57 , Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have reviewed the input both the last 2 weeks and the discussion back
> > in April.
> >
> > I see a strong support but with at least 2 people disagreeing to a basic
> > p2p datagram functionality. The use cases are various and some just
> > state that they see it as important functionality to provide to empower
> > the web application.
> >
> > Based on this I declare a rough consensus on that we should provide a
> > non-media data service that is unreliable datagram oriented directly
> > between the peers.
> >
> > One of objections against this was lack of clear requirements for what
> > the service. The straw men requirements I included has gotten some
> > discussion. Mostly support for them, but it is clear to me that we need
> > to further develop them. I would recommend the proponents for driving
> > proposals towards meeting this functionality to further discuss the
> > requirements taking the input so far into consideration.
> >
> > When it comes to reliable data transfer between peers there has been 4-5
> > that wanted the functionality, 2 additional that explicitly stated they
> > where okay with it. No additional that has stated against it.
> >
> > My interpretation is that we are close to having a rough consensus for
> > reliable data service, but we have so far seen no proponent willing to
> > suggest a solution for this. I would also note that a solution is likely
> > a functionality block that isn't dependent on more than the
> > signaling/negotiation and the NAT traversal and thus can be added a
> > later stage or be worked on with a completion date further into the
> > future than other pieces already.
> >
> > So for reliable data I would recommend that someone takes on the role of
> > proponent and provides a draft with their perceived requirements and a
> > straw man proposal for how to solve these requirements so we have
> > something more tangible to discuss.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Magnus
> >
> > On 2011-06-27 09:36, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> >> WG,
> >>
> >> At the interim it was planned to have a bit discussion on the datagram
> >> service for RTCWEB. The first question to try to resolve if there
> >> is consensus for including some form of non real-time media (i.e. not
> >> audio, video) service between peers. This is a bit tangled with the
> >> actual requirements and use cases. But there was views both for it and
> >> against it on the mailing list. So lets continue and try to come to a
> >> conclusion on this discussion.
> >>
> >> The use cases mentioned on the mailing list are:
> >>
> >> - Dynamic meta data for Conference and other real-time services
> >>
> >> - Gaming data with low latency requirements
> >>
> >> Does anyone like to add additional use cases?
> >>
> >> Based on my personal understanding this points to primarily have the
> >> RTCWEB provide a unreliable datagram service. This clearly needs
> >> additional requirements to be secure and safe to deploy, but more about
> >> this below. I still like to ask the WG here a question.
> >>
> >> Are you supporting the inclusion of a unreliable datagram service
> >> directly between peers? Please provide your view and any additional
> >> statements of motivation that you desire to provide.
> >>
> >> Secondly, there is a question if there needs to have something that
> >> provides reliable message (of arbitrary size) or byte stream oriented
> >> data transport between the peers. I personally foresee that people will
> >> build JS libraries for this on top of a unreliable datagram service. If
> >> you desire reliable data service as part of the standardized solution
> >> please provide motivation and use case and requirements.
> >>
> >> I also want to take a stab on what I personally see as the requirements
> >> that exist on unreliable datagram service in the context of RTCWEB.
> >>
> >> - Unreliable data transmission
> >> - Datagram oriented
> >>   * Size limited by MTU
> >>     - Path MTU discovery needed
> >>   * Fragmentation by the application
> >> - Low latency, i.e. Peer to Peer preferable
> >> - Congestion Controlled, to be
> >>   * Network friendly
> >>   * Not become a Denial of Service tool
> >> - Security
> >>  * Confidentiality
> >>  * Integrity Protected
> >>  * Source Authenticated (at least bound to the signalling peer)
> >>  * Ensure consent to receive data
> >>
> >> Please debate the above. This is an attempt to ensure that we can
> >> establish WG consensus on both data service and any requirements.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> Magnus Westerlund
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> >> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> >> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rtcweb mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Magnus Westerlund
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> > Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> Cullen Jennings
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb


Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron 2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr. 556656-6880
Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This email may be
confidential or privileged.  If you received this communication by mistake,
please don't forward it to anyone else,please erase all copies and
attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person.
 Thanks.