Re: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below

Justin Uberti <> Wed, 19 February 2020 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E7612089B for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:55:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 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, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6VmFBtLXsQvI for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:55:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2695F120836 for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:55:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m4so2417060vsa.12 for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:55:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hW6Xnndl75C2Kd0vX3mTSIB9Fjd/OJwmDxYtb27YDAc=; b=HDs6ChFXUQoUJXKHs09RaWb3I7oD1ul97kWB+36cyNi23r9oLIm1cI0noY31ovuUao xXKtL90BTYPeazoEryNrvH26ILWWk8jP8Zg6pvMKz6Iv+nTC+oHNRans4kDRgiHsKLib OyR0hRoUMEh3mKsnQ0YyMokcmCJsJBaEBoIsAEiu40SaSWCtVaJXCzh3hnpdtfy0tEZn jWQQXVQK+q0gvJXYzSeyAaYOfLqRGkvbb+ttBydSUc0Gi/Pvee7dHbYqUA8d2HGUs0lJ YmJE98Z0/rMiAaz0TaHh1RVOKByD9GGNXKefZFnhw665glLBK128DmNbNZhp13ql8FPM G+yA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hW6Xnndl75C2Kd0vX3mTSIB9Fjd/OJwmDxYtb27YDAc=; b=AIr4ODXGDXkdVsxI7DvRmtDtTMscNwyCfpSWr4DI0UeKxElPfQQ4IWcoyHmZ+8nyUN m3ByAXa29noBBmSA70e5k8nzdheRiMtUdLN11R103df/P1UFJijvC0Wn91W942t90AaS cok3xoq02ACpONIwht138E8WelofXJ2tx2y88hjVW8ZYVP3u7trQD9fBy/SPrzoxfefa LDcy1+b5rNF6BoQMJWqhu/6VQQSIbA2AD0SiZkaG/GNoJ1wez4TlMLKVu7KjsyrpjtYq NB8XRwE3aA5vK/02KX3Hp18HuWdwaBKX4wQnKJP8fdyXsIhYf71kOmTHhLim4Ei0+Zdt ykTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUwXcDgh8ugzeOLwh6oZDVZyPrxGMB4ymouHVoTKW612wZ5dpUP FXRARjjeFZsFkzNNVP0kL6xAmnVC8QWlLVoacJb9Qg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwjNQjDJ0RwPi4Ikfo/9Q//vmuahv7SzoBFSici/v6LoC0HnCHRDWZW2lmtb14fcwbDpiAYyM+cWqPFyEhvcTs=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:4c5:: with SMTP id 188mr12378260vse.43.1582084516595; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:55:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Justin Uberti <>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:55:05 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Ross Finlayson <>
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>, Jonathan Rosenberg <>, "" <>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e2458059ee5c13a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [V3] RIPT BoF approved for IETF 107 - Draft charter below
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:55:21 -0000

Replying to Ross...

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:02 PM Ross Finlayson <>

> > On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:12 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg <>
> wrote:
> >
> > Also to be clear - whilst I agree that RTP on QUIC is interesting - it
> is not in scope because httpbis is our target, not quic. We want to allow
> voice signaling and media to run over web infrastructure services, so http
> is our 'waist of the hourglass' not quic.
> So just to clarify here:  Is your goal (for this protocol) that media be
> transferred only over streams (TCP or (reliable) QUIC), not datagrams?
> Consequently, how important is end-to-end latency for audio/video calls
> that would use this protocol?

Critical. We believe that there are techniques within HTTP/3 that can
address this situation, although (speaking for myself) we may find
ourselves needing to go lower in the protocol stack.

> And are peer-to-peer audio/video calls (that would not involve a web
> server at all, except perhaps for initial end-user lookup/discovery) out of
> scope for this protocol?

P2P is in scope, but using existing WebRTC protocols. Since p2p scenarios
require both endpoints to participate, there's a chicken-and-egg problem
there, and we can look at that after we get things working in the c2s

> If that's the case, then you’re not really ‘replacing’ RTP, but rather
> defining a new media transport protocol to be used in this one (restricted,
> but important) environment: Transport using reliable protocols via web
> server(s).  And if that’s the case, then I’m concerned that your SIP
> replacement (i.e., replacement of the one thing that’s truly broken, and
> needs replacing) might end up being too restrictive for more general media
> transport (datagrams and/or peer-to-peer).

This is a reasonable concern, but we think that starting small and
expanding scope later (especially when there is a sense of how that
expansion might work) might allow for faster progress.

> Ross Finlayson
> Live Networks, Inc.
> --
> V3 mailing list