Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and requirements

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 28 June 2011 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.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 0A8E011E8124 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elWissstMEVv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0187011E8114 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p5SGSwJt015199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:28:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p5SGSwd7025368 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:28:58 -0500
Received: from [135.222.134.156] (USMUYN0L055118.mh.lucent.com [135.222.134.156]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p5SGStQZ020670; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:28:57 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E0A0147.2030402@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:28:55 -0400
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
References: <blu152-w313AC2093422E0C005708093570@phx.gbl> <4E090781.20308@jitsi.org> <4E09CE8F.8000508@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E09D701.4030400@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E09D701.4030400@jitsi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and requirements
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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, 28 Jun 2011 16:29:02 -0000

No, most likely it was I who missed something...  Yes, I remember the 
timer questions,  but I thought Jonathan answered this.

(By the way, I do not have a firm opinion on the subject myself, and I 
don't  understand the issues behind the performance model here.)

Surely, it is too early for the consensus to be formed, but I expect our 
esteemed chairmen to declare it at certain point because the matters 
like that ought to be settled as early as possible.

Igor

On 6/28/2011 9:28 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> На 28.06.11 14:52, Igor Faynberg написа:
>> At the interim meeting,  there was a strong argument for NOT having ICE
>> as part of the browser, and I remember that no one objected.  My reading
>> is that it has been the decision.
> Well. I did attend the meeting but I remember no such decision or even
> rough consensus. I actually remember people discussing the fact that
> properly implementing ICE in javascript might be tricky due to the timer
> granularity and the pacing requirements in 5245.
>
> Have I missed something?
>
> Emil
>
>> Igor
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/2011 6:43 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> For these transactional exchanges the overhead of ICE would be excessive
>>>> and so there will be a very strong temptation to cut corners.
>>> Well, if ICE is part of the browser we could condition sending such data
>>> on the successful termination of ICE processing with the intended
>>> destination. Same as with RTP. Wouldn't this work?
>>>
>>> Emil
>>>
>>>> Assuming that the goal is not to send arbitrary data, then we need to
>>>> dig into the transport requirements more.
>>>>
>>>> For example, is the non-media data to be synchronized with media (e.g.
>>>> real-time text)?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a session associated with the non-media data (e.g. XMPP or MSRP
>>>> exchanges)?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a reliability requirement?
>>>>
>>>> Is it congestion-controlled?
>>>>
>>>> How long-lived are the flows?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
>>>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:36:30 +0200
>>>> Subject: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and requirements
>>>>
>>>> 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  +46 10 7148287
>>>> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
>>>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb