[rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media

"Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com> Tue, 15 May 2012 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770B911E80B3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 16:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IAmZKQMGZGeF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 16:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from som-mx-a.nuance.com (som-mx-a.nuance.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D984D11E80A1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 16:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEABjksk8KHBQY/2dsb2JhbABEtQyCFwU6JSwBFRUUQiYBBBvDE5ARYwScFI0S
Received: from unknown (HELO SOM-CAS01.nuance.com) ([]) by som-mx-a.nuance.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 15 May 2012 19:06:47 -0400
Received: from SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com ([fe80::b1be:1c21:d7f8:543c]) by SOM-CAS01.nuance.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:22:10 -0400
From: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: TCP vs UDP for media
Thread-Index: Ac0y8YFlKfCoI+0LRZ2tsFbI0SJeNw==
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 23:22:09 +0000
Message-ID: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A45AE47@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 23:22:12 -0000

Most of the use cases within WebRTC center around human to human communication, and for such cases RTP transport makes sense.  But there are at least a few use cases where one of the endpoints could be a machine.  Since machines have the ability to buffer and take a quick nap on the job, the "realtime" requirement isn't as critical.  Often, in such cases, the more important consideration is whether all of the media was transmitted.

I'm relatively new to WebRTC, so I apologize if I'm rehashing settled issues.  But I'm wondering if any thought has been given to TCP as a media transport.  If framing and timeouts could be worked out, would other folks besides myself find this useful?