Re: [Wish] WG recharter

Hi Bernard,

Do you have any suggestions about how the charter should be modified to
address your feedback?  I feel we are delaying the rechartering too much
and preventing us from doing any actual work.

Best regards
Sergio

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 9:17 PM Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bernard,
>
> When the WG was presented (and approved) at Dispatch, the goal was to
> reuse "whatever JSEP supports", that's why we can't produce any media
> protocol in this WG. Anyway, do you have any suggestions about how the
> charter text should be modified so it covers your concerns?
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 6:15 AM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure what “movement” you’re looking for.
>>
>> No one is going to create a separate spec for transport of CMAF in Data
>> Channel, just like there is no “spec” for transport of CMAF in MoQ. There’s
>> no spec, because it’s just single line in a document: “one CMAF chunk per
>> message.”  Done.
>>
>> What would be nice is if the Charter included a document that would
>> derive what the WHEP requirements are, based on the use cases. Right now,
>> it seems like the requirements are “whatever JSEP supports”.   For at least
>> some use cases (e.g. live sports) that’s not even “in the ballpark”.
>>
>> > On May 3, 2023, at 08:06, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hey so this has been sitting around for a bit and just wanted to check
>> on whether there has been any movement I might not be aware of.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > spt
>> >
>> >> On Apr 17, 2023, at 15:18, Tim Panton <tim@pi.pe> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think there might well be need for a group to specify how to carry
>> various things over DataChannels,
>> >> (We’ve tunnelled webpages and websockets, lighting control signals,
>> identity proofs, subtitles, certificates, files, firmware updates etc)
>> >> but I don’t think WISH is the place to have that discussion.
>> >>
>> >> @bernard Perhaps we should sketch something out for dispatch...
>> >>
>> >> T.
>> >>
>> >>>> On 17 Apr 2023, at 19:06, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Juliusz said:
>> >>>
>> >>> "I think that's an important point.  In WHIP, Sergio has been careful
>> to
>> >>> stick to signalling, and defer all other protocol features to existing
>> >>> standards.  That's what makes WHIP so eminently implementable."
>> >>>
>> >>> [BA]  Except that there *are* "eminently implementable" standards,
>> such as CMAF for containerization and MSE API (for rendering).  To prove
>> the point, CMAF is supported in early MoQ drafts and browser clients demos
>> supporting MSE have implemented "rewind".  If WebTransport were swapped out
>> for RTCDataChannel, those same demos would run in Chromium.
>> >>>
>> >>> So the protocols have already been defined and implemented, and
>> running code already exists.  In that sense, the remaining functionality is
>> largely in the realm of "signaling" (e.g. how to request CMAF over
>> RTCDataChannel, or how to request "rewind").
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:33 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> Regarding the specific DRM and rewind functionalities, there is not
>> a standard
>> >>>> way of implementing them that we can reuse here.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that's an important point.  In WHIP, Sergio has been careful
>> to
>> >>> stick to signalling, and defer all other protocol features to existing
>> >>> standards.  That's what makes WHIP so eminently implementable.
>> >>>
>> >>> -- Juliusz
>> >>> --
>> >>> Wish mailing list
>> >>> Wish@ietf.org
>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish
>> >>
>> >
>>
>