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

[Sergio Garcia Murillo <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Comments below.
>
> On Feb 28, 2023, at 05:48, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Hi Bernard,
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback, comments below inline.
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:56 PM Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>
> 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 sentence may have been correct at one time, it seems out of date now.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
>
>