Re: [V3] Thoughts on scope for ript

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 25 March 2020 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
X-Original-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AB33A0A16 for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wzLjkkbc4A8F for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x942.google.com (mail-ua1-x942.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::942]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 210F63A0A46 for <v3@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x942.google.com with SMTP id o15so1272301ual.3 for <v3@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RUKXYMz7txulgKvgH1svXJkb3juYvfkEyQ3fcodGmsg=; b=E4xKaXIJKVE82lRdg4XVeVL+abem3oHlwogOnUNU8RKW3ZOIf81U2YTgCIuZYqscMQ XSUaCOk8FRPA+Z4MbSy9Pvhs7qktOkxQt3njYKRG3jvJhMkFnTjxNLRuaa62qhVAIoyj 0rypfjo/QlMU1gd9/rE+LmO5nTSemt3cDfv0/SPDMr3SReCn+rs9GvAhCAM3gU0lIZ+u Uim7iD2sWoV7yknYBdv11rYU4DzvFMGMigY4PcraOhMUKNW9Nn+0snQm6wrogzTb3F1Y OvU3Wd75KTl+EbhviELNtDohT7PILC3OJYO/jIvKXrjMiesU+APkD5IveZnTosCB/N2S Fefg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RUKXYMz7txulgKvgH1svXJkb3juYvfkEyQ3fcodGmsg=; b=GrdINoE7sHT6ZyXZluZ7n897S+s1LbkkCwhgwfTBwify3hsQ/kSJ7dBLjRy5tfO95y LS7vRNfPkbJYzHbcyyihljO4mOO5G3BOY8r0hH2IFpftFfvkYi9ON3tAdQvTE31wVRvv TzjRnIOJNJ7TTsXbA8bT0uxWiJcXPbD4gCTL25O6aPnirq3sJV+o92haYjYA+SxwFmo4 2mP0ZXtJw8EFYknYYV3JU1JNII2zi4iidkyq3GAEIF2o7XT8S8sBjIO0zLgYXbTiFuSd xikHR7q60TIhpiElys4TmBNQuYbawpseo3z0ymRoKF+wAOdCr+syHxPJRfOLEZ5h41Wn p9lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2IcDWJ25efih8cK1p+7f4TT22KwN3GKiUtMUN5K1OWp3icmUTe ACXLm7/D2UazFl40+BM/on0cSxz7P2b48naya5WkEQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuyfoWS1MTD2iskhFD6s4XCEUv/VW5rRhjf3QdzZcv36cBdRNSZ8XykJH+OoJ+YYJhKO4L6mAlTSdC79RQixBo=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2204:: with SMTP id 4mr3744961uad.87.1585167516645; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR06MB4391FBC64E195E87003061B8FBF00@BYAPR06MB4391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CAOJ7v-0MP4p=tpzgNJu1Mxgt8cv4PL01PbQWhTzN6bYSQR9Yuw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAZdMadmEuZz4T6t6BP_=ZMUrducE4g-qwYHpeiB8Ho8SEKCsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-d-6O1_aP1_7KENQSMYyE5yLhrbSCxec1TEEDB_0ss6=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0SEtMPedQ=Jga5ErTTTeacUjCKTOZd1arzUDKDVXjyoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-cZ+oxysgsyoGVQyV_z3GALT9uEYcwia5qLONjw1Oc2Rg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-230-EskWz0abxcmTEpz4jf7xuVjOeVYeuxbEA3p2pr2Q@mail.gmail.com> <A45D04C3-D640-485D-BAF4-611DBE41DBAA@stewe.org> <CAOJ7v-25kNE+rg+Jk25YuRVa5RT7JtBZR0jnPh-motsbHFAa9w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNYFpV519O0--d8OpQQQq0epSrSOXi8TFEvWNmDrNzTcQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNYFpV519O0--d8OpQQQq0epSrSOXi8TFEvWNmDrNzTcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:18:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1s+i5400qFAsskSOwuafeYHckHrRkpbEe6WXrc9cTgkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>, Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@five9.com>, "v3@ietf.org" <v3@ietf.org>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bdb59e05a1b39232"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v3/43n9E7k5d-cVtuCFS58mx6hLga0>
Subject: Re: [V3] Thoughts on scope for ript
X-BeenThere: v3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <v3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v3/>
List-Post: <mailto:v3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:18:43 -0000

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:58 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:52 PM Justin Uberti <juberti=
> 40google..com@dmarc.ietf.org <40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:38 PM Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Justin, all:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *V3 <v3-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Justin Uberti <juberti=
>>> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>>> *Date: *Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 12:32
>>> *To: *Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> *Cc: *Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>om>, Jonathan Rosenberg <
>>> jdrosen@five9.com>gt;, "v3@ietf.org" <v3@ietf.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [V3] Thoughts on scope for ript
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:26 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
>>> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Replying to Justin, after reading Victor's reply - thank you both for
>>> replying ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:55 AM Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 9:28 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
>>> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is interesting ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:31 AM Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv=
>>> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to second Justin's point here about the value of a
>>> client-server RTP streaming by itself (e-f, though in-band c-d are also
>>> valuable).  There's a lot of value in the world where I can take an HTTP
>>> URL to some endpoint in the cloud and give it to, say, an IoT camera device
>>> to use as a realtime media sink, or pass it to an off-the-shelf streaming
>>> library to show a realtime media source on screen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know most of my own concerns about RIPT media have started out with
>>> "this won't be as good as RTP for media", but what I've been getting from
>>> RIPT discussions is, that may not matter as much as I expected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For a use case like Victor's, great media quality would be great, but
>>> good enough media quality may be ... good enough.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I putting words in the mouths of the proponents?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some applications may tolerate somewhat lower quality in fallback
>>> scenarios, but I think we should be aiming for RTP performance with HTTP
>>> ease of deployment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was actually hoping that wasn't the case, because ISTM that the
>>> question whether RTP performance over HTTP is possible/likely is going to
>>> suck up a LOT of the discussion time during the BOF ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To Eric's point, "H3 is not widely deployed yet, and so we should think
>>> about how we want things to look". I think it's entirely possible to
>>> achieve RTP performance over H3, and hopefully also have a reasonable
>>> fallback when only H2 is available.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Stephan]: many video conferencing technologies (including Vidyo, Zoom),
>>> have previously, or are currently supporting http-based media transport,
>>> often for years or even decades.  They are almost never enabled by any
>>> professional deployer, because the resulting QoS is user-perceived as so
>>> bad that the marketing guys decided that offering no video/voice (and
>>> instead make people pick of the phone) is better for product reputation
>>> than offer the degraded QoS.
>>>
>>> Do any of you guys have hard numbers what sort of delay h3-based
>>> transport can achieve on today’s infrastructure?
>>>
>>
>> With H3 we have lots of options; there are lots of details to work
>> through here but given that the substrate is QUIC there is no theoretical
>> reason why RTP performance isn't possible.
>>
>> Regarding HTTP media transport in existing products (i.e., non-H3), you
>> are correct that there are indeed limitations and as such providers do what
>> they can to avoid this option, but it is nowhere near as grim as you make
>> it out to be. Recall that the first web version of Zoom exclusively used
>> websockets for transport
>> <https://webrtchacks.com/zoom-avoids-using-webrtc/>.
>>
>
> I mostly concur with Justin here: I would expect QUIC (which is to say
> probably H3 + Datagram) to be roughly comparable to RTP [0]. Anything over
> TCP will obviously be non-awesome, but we already do have some nontrivial
> fraction of media going over TCP to TURN relays, so it's not like it
> doesn't work at all, especially in good network conditions.
>
> -Ekr
>
> [0] There are some open issues with how QUIC congestion control and the
> media rate control interact, but I imagine they are mostly soluble.
>

Yes, the CC stuff is one of the details I was thinking of. The other main
one is the right abstractions in cloud providers to allow more direct
access to the underlying transport.