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

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 03 August 2011 17:29 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 9A86821F84F4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:29:23 -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 yK-Yv5Qeedqi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1126721F84F2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p73HTZah019480 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:29:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p73HTYbL010287 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:29:35 -0500
Received: from [135.222.134.166] (USMUYN0L055118.mh.lucent.com [135.222.134.166]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p73HTY3L007885; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:29:34 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E39857E.3040407@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:29:34 -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: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4E390884.5050909@cs.vu.nl> <4E394434.3040802@jesup.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E394434.3040802@jesup.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New use case: Large multiparty session
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:29:23 -0000

I strongly support the use case, but I was under the impression that 
there has been a use case thar required a similar architecture: a 
"central" server (of course, it can be replicated) for accumulating 
input and distributing output.

For one thing, the music collaboration use case, I believe, calls for 
this architecture.

Perhaps one thing to watch for in the use case write-ups is separation 
between a use case and architecture. These are two different things 
because one architecture can fit many (and maybe all) use cases.

Igor

On 8/3/2011 8:51 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 8/3/2011 4:36 AM, Arno Bakker wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> as proposed in the July 26th meeting I'd like to put forward a new use
>> case: 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.
>