Re: [rtcweb] New use case: Large multiparty session

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 08 August 2011 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835D921F8A71 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 05:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 PwH4J+9G2fWd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 05:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11FB21F854E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 05:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A214739E0F5; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:50:52 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Krs7jFkujHC; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:50:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5552A39E0BC; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 14:50:51 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E3FDBF1.3030808@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:52:01 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: arno@cs.vu.nl
References: <4E390884.5050909@cs.vu.nl> <4E394434.3040802@jesup.org> <4E394E76.2030302@cs.vu.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4E394E76.2030302@cs.vu.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New use case: Large multiparty session
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: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:51:38 -0000

On 08/03/11 15:34, Arno Bakker wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 14:51, Randell Jesup wrote:
>> On 8/3/2011 4:36 AM, Arno Bakker wrote:
> >>
>>> assume a client is involved in a large multiparty session but is
>>> unable (or unwilling) to upload his signals to all participants.
>>>
>>> This suggests forwarding support from the network is required, e.g.
>>> some relay server, multicast, or the future IETF peer-to-peer streaming
>>> protocol (PPSP).
>>
>> So the use case is:
>>
>> User is part of a multiparty (3 or greater) session, but for one of
>> several reasons (such as
>> available upstream bandwidth) cannot send media to all other
>> participants ("mesh" conferencing).
>> This requires that another node, either a central network node (such as
>> a conferencing server)
>> or another member in the session, relay or mix the user's media to
>> distribute to the rest of the
>> members of the session.
>>
>
>
> Yes. Although your wording suggests a single relay node (central or 
> member) is used. Please leave the option of true peer-to-peer 
> distribution (or IP multicast) of the signal open.
In draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-01.txt, the "central 
server" model is listed in section 4.3.3, "Video conferencing system 
with central server".

I am strongly opposed to adding use cases (which in turn generate 
requirements) to this first iteration of RTCWEB that we do not know how 
to fulfil with any currently deployed standard technology, so I would 
definitely want to leave the "peer to peer distribution or IP multicast" 
out of the picture for now. It can be added to a working appendix of 
"Use cases that have been discussed, but will not be considered as 
requirements in this iteration of RTCWEB".