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

["Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[e-mail]>]

So what I think we should do here is to use QUIC  (or fallback to something else) as the transport mechanism for the media. Now QUIC provide for example congestion control. So does RTP. Trying to define how RTPs congestion controls works when running at the same time as QUICs seem like a nightmare. I think we should just define the mapping of the RTP like semantics about the media into a QUIC stream and let QUIC be the transport - not try and say we are using RTP over QUIC. 



> On Feb 18, 2020, at 2:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I am also hoping for clarity here, or at least clue. 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 2:02 PM Ross Finlayson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:12 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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).
> 
> I think I arrived at the same place as Ross, coming from the opposite direction. ("Thunk!")
> 
> ISTM that the proposal floating through here for a new media transport protocol, if it is successful, would be useful for non-RIPT applications as well, and ISTM that other proposals for RTP over QUIC (or whatever we're all muttering about privately), if one of them is successful, might be useful for RIPT applications as well. 
> 
> So, the first suggestion I'd make at the BOF, if work on media transport of whatever flavor is still part of the proposed RIPT charter, is to split it off into a separate proposal, which I'd love to see go forward on its own, unless there are really strong reasons why RIPT signaling specification work and RIPT media transport work need to be coupled, need to fate-share, and need to compete for attention in the same working group. 
> 
> I can say more about that at a mike in Vancouver, but let me start with this, on a mailing list ...
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Spencer
>  
> Ross Finlayson
> Live Networks, Inc.
> http://www.live555.com/
>