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
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Jonathan Rosenberg
- [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and req… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Christopher Blizzard
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Manuel Simoni
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Manuel Simoni
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Christopher Blizzard
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Non-media data service consensus and… Randell Jesup
- [rtcweb] Consensus Call on Non-media data service… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call on Non-media data ser… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call on Non-media data ser… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call on Non-media data ser… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call on Non-media data ser… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Consensus Call on Non-media data ser… Dzonatas Sol
- [rtcweb] realiable data service Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Serge Lachapelle
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Serge Lachapelle
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Emil Ivov
- [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realiable … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Serge Lachapelle
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Serge Lachapelle
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] realiable data service Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] PseudoTCP implementation (Re: realia… Justin Uberti