Re: [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 16 May 2012 06:44 UTC
Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
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 4BA9021F867E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 23:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 tRfiJgu9W1t6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 23:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BE821F86EF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 23:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7c5aae000007a47-3e-4fb34cae5776
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3B.1A.31303.EAC43BF4; Wed, 16 May 2012 08:43:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 16 May 2012 08:43:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB34CAD.80103@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:43:57 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
References: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A45AE47@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com> <4FB2E8FC.40404@thaumas.net> <CABcZeBPWiGYaD6yBtBzeZMNgnz20JnHTyVHTev71KZagGRiqHw@mail.gmail.com> <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A45AFA0@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
In-Reply-To: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A45AFA0@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 16 May 2012 06:44:01 -0000
On 2012-05-16 03:37, Young, Milan wrote: > Yes, existing web technologies for transport would work fine. In > fact I wrote a demo based on WebSockets, the AudioAPI, and > getUserMedia. But it's a bit cludgy and only transmits PCM audio. > > Would my use case for live access to an encoded media stream be a > good fit for a revised MediaStreamRecorder? Would this group the > right place to host such an effort? I think this is something you should take to the W3C. As it appear to be primarily an API question. Getting access to the content in the JS application or request the browser to record to a local file which later can be uploaded it would not be in this WG. Cheers Magnus Westerlund WG chair > > Thanks > > -----Original Message----- From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:47 PM To: Ralph Giles Cc: Young, > Milan; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Ralph Giles <giles@thaumas.net> > wrote: >> On 12-05-15 4:22 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >> >>> I'm wondering if any thought has been given to TCP as a media >>> transport. >> >> Where low latency transmission isn't an issue, one can generally >> fall back to established TCP-based protocols, like HTTP streaming >> and websockets, so we haven't really worried about that angle in >> the context of webrtc. >> >> Recording the stream is a requirement, so probably something could >> be built using that, merging recordings from each endpoint to fix >> up any dropped packets. > > Agreed. This seems like something that could be done using just > getUserMedia() plus existing Web technologies. > > -Ekr _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing > list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > -- Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media Young, Milan
- Re: [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media Ralph Giles
- Re: [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media Young, Milan
- Re: [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] TCP vs UDP for media Cullen Jennings