Re: [Wish] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-wish-whip

Sergio: Thanks for the work here.
Bernard: Would really appreciate the review so that we can get the new I-D in before Monday’s submission deadline.

Cheers,
spt

> On Mar 8, 2023, at 09:06, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bernard,
> 
> I have created 3 PRs addressing your feedback:
> 
> https://github.com/wish-wg/webrtc-http-ingest-protocol/pulls
> 
> Could you review them and let me know if you are happy with the changes?  I plan to submit a new draft by the end of the week.
> 
> Best regards
> Sergio
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:09 PM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
> Comments below.
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2023, at 05:48, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Bernard,
>> 
>> Thank you very much for your feedback, comments below inline.
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:56 PM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is my (belated) review. 
>> 
>> Section 1
>> 
>> “ While WebRTC has been very successful in a wide range of scenarios,
>>    its adoption in the broadcasting/streaming industry is lagging 
>>    behind.”
>> 
>> [BA] I recently saw a survey indicating that WHIP is now the second most implemented ingestion protocol, second only to RTMP.  So while this sentence may have been correct at one time, it seems out of date now.  Can we delete this sentence? 
>> 
>> Also, overall Section 1 seems like it could be shortened considerably by highlighting the major points. Here is my suggestion: 
>> 
>> 
>> I am ok with changing the introduction, will review your text and propose a PR with your changes.
> 
> [BA] Sounds good.
> 
>>  
>> Section 2
>> 
>> I do not see a definition of “track”.  I think this is important to clarify. 
>> 
>>  I already had a PR related to that adding a reference to RFC8830.
>> 
>> https://github.com/wish-wg/webrtc-http-ingest-protocol/pull/95
>> 
>> Do you think it would be enough?
> 
> [BA] I would also add a definition for “track”.
> 
>> Yes, this is definitely possible, see me comment about using track as defined in RFC8830. Given that stereo and surround sound are SDP negotiated, do you think that we need to include any further clarification apart of the track one?
> 
> [BA] I think that’s all that is needed.
> 
>>  I agree with you, should we remove the reference to SVC completely and only leave simulcast support in that section?
> 
> [BA] That would make sense. Only thing to worry about might be ingestors that can’t handle reference scaling (e.g. spatial modes) but that’s an edge case that might be not be encountered in practice.
> 
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Sergio
> -- 
> Wish mailing list
> Wish@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish