November 2010 - RTC-Web

Dinner tonight
by Jan Skoglund 08 Nov '10

08 Nov '10

Hey, I'd like to join. Jan Skoglund Global IP Solutions CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message, including any attachment(s), contains information that may be confidential, protected by the attorney-client or other legal privileges, and/or proprietary non-public information. If you are not an intended recipient of this message or an authorized assistant to an intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication and notify the sender immediately. It should be noted that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking action or reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.

1 0

Voxeo's Phono - a JavaScript library to add a phone or chat client to a web browser
by Dan York 07 Nov '10

07 Nov '10

RTC Web participants, I don't know how many of you have been following our news lately, but back on October 16th we released a jQuery plugin we call "Phono" that lets you use JavaScript to add a phone or chat client to any web browser. Info about the announcement, tutorials, videos and the source code (Phono is open source) are all available from this URL: http://blogs.voxeo.com/news/phono/ In particular some of you may be interested in this post about the architecture: http://blog.phono.com/2010/10/25/behind-the-phone/ For this initial release Phono uses Flash for the client but it is a framework that can use other technologies - and we are working on a number of alternatives (and would certainly like to work with you all on that). If you would like to talk more about Phono, I unfortunately won't be in Beijing, but Dan Burnett (cc'd) will be there and will be in many of the RAI sessions. Jose De Castro, the Chief Architect of our Voxeo Labs team, is also on this RTW mailing list as are several others who have been involved with the Phono work. Looking forward to further discussions here, Dan -- Dan York, Director of Conversations Voxeo Corporation http://www.voxeo.com dyork(a)voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork Join the Voxeo conversation: Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/voxeo http://twitter.com/danyork Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/voxeo

1 0

Re: [RTW] Fwd: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt
by Mark Watson 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Hi Everyone, There is certainly a lot of interest, but I just wanted to inject a word of caution with respect to this specific ID. It has been the subject of quite some discussion on the IETF httpstreaming list (httpstreaming(a)ietf.org<mailto:httpstreaming@ietf.org>), so if you're not subscribed there I'd suggest checking the archives. The doc is rather out-of-date with respect to the MPEG work and I think a number of people feel the stated issues leading to a "server push" model are in fact non-issues. ...Mark -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [RTW] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:42:55 +1100 From: Mark Nottingham <mnot(a)mnot.net><mailto:mnot@mnot.net> To: rtc-web(a)alvestrand.no<mailto:rtc-web@alvestrand.no> FYI. Probably not in-scope here because of the realtime aspect, but as I say, there seem to be lots of different people interested in this general area... Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: ietf-http-wg(a)w3.org<mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > From: Mark Nottingham <mnot(a)mnot.net><mailto:mnot@mnot.net> > Date: 3 November 2010 8:57:30 PM AEDT > To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg(a)w3.org><mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, zongning(a)huawei.com<mailto:zongning@huawei.com> > Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt > archived-at: <http://www.w3.org/mid/12A744C7-1C13-4AD4-9947-DBBD8CBF81AC@mnot.net><http://www.w3.org/mid/12A744C7-1C13-4AD4-9947-DBBD8CBF81AC@mnot.net> > > I wanted to bring this draft to the attention of the list, as I think it's some of the better and more complete work I've seen in an area that seems to be interesting to a lot of people these days: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-0… > > My specific feedback: > > Overall this is comprehensive and helpful in moving the discussion forward. Please continue! > > It may be useful to further separate the "real-time" / "live" streaming case from others, as it most likely requires a different approach (as noted in the draft). If you're not already aware of it, you should have a look at the results of the Realtime Web workshop, as well as the ongoing discussion: <http://rtc-web.alvestrand.com/><http://rtc-web.alvestrand.com/>. > > While it appears that all of the approaches you cover are compatible with "generic" HTTP, I wonder how compatible they are in the details. For example: > a) is it possible to serve video for each using only a "vanilla" HTTP server like Apache or IIS, without any extra modules or server-side scripts? Setting headers and serving files from the filesystem is fine, as is having a process that writes the files to the filesystem for you. > > b) how compatible is each approach with off-the-shelf HTTP caches? E.g., if there's significant variance in the URIs (because of dynamic parameters being passed in), it'll "bust" the cache and lower the hit rate. I know that most of them are not using HTTP range requests; it would be interesting to explore this a bit more. > > It would also be very helpful to see examples of the actual HTTP messages (with headers and bodies) used by the various approaches, to give a better idea of how they use the protocol. > > Regarding the lack of QoE improvement and monitoring (in "Challenges"), my interest is in what can be done by clients to minimise delay, quantify the quality of the connection, and adapt without coordination with the server. Adding server hints to responses would be helpful too, of course, but I suspect that a lot more can be done on the client side (perhaps without standardisation; documenting best practices may be enough). > > Cheers, > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org<mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> >> Date: 25 October 2010 10:00:02 PM AEDT >> To: i-d-announce(a)ietf.org<mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org> >> Subject: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt >> Reply-To: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> >> Title : Survey and Gap Analysis for HTTP Streaming Standards and Implementations >> Author(s) : N. Zong >> Filename : draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt >> Pages : 23 >> Date : 2010-10-25 >> >> With the explosive growth of the Internet usage and increasing demand >> for multimedia information on the web, media delivery over Internet >> attract substantial attention from media industry. To meet above >> requirements, HTTP Streaming technology is designed and gradually >> plays an important role in recent years. Several leading Standard >> Development Organizations (SDOs) have been producing a series of >> technical specifications to define streaming over HTTP. Moreover, >> several companies have devoted to developing private HTTP-based media >> delivery platform to provide high quality, adaptive viewing >> experience to customers. Following a brief survey of existing HTTP >> streaming standards and implementations, this document gives a brief >> summary on these related work, analyzes the potential challenges >> especially from the network point of view, and lists the gap between >> existing work and possible working scope on the topic of HTTP >> streaming in IETF. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-0… >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >> Internet-Draft. <Mail Attachment><Attached Message Part.txt><Attached Message Part.txt><ATT00001..txt>

1 0

Re: [RTW] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt
by Ingemar Johansson S 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Hi For the interested I believe that it is good to read the discussion on the dedicated list for this proposed work as this subject is quite heavily debated. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/httpstreaming Regards /Ingemar > -----Original Message----- > From: rtc-web-bounces(a)alvestrand.no > [mailto:rtc-web-bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of > rtc-web-request(a)alvestrand.no > Sent: den 3 november 2010 12:00 > To: rtc-web(a)alvestrand.no > Subject: RTC-Web Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1 > > Send RTC-Web mailing list submissions to > rtc-web(a)alvestrand.no > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > rtc-web-request(a)alvestrand.no > > You can reach the person managing the list at > rtc-web-owner(a)alvestrand.no > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific than "Re: Contents of RTC-Web digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt > (Mark Nottingham) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:42:55 +1100 > From: Mark Nottingham <mnot(a)mnot.net> > To: rtc-web(a)alvestrand.no > Subject: [RTW] Fwd: I-D > Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt > Message-ID: <EDF81533-3F20-453F-8A36-666BB54DAC52(a)mnot.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > FYI. Probably not in-scope here because of the realtime > aspect, but as I say, there seem to be lots of different > people interested in this general area... > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > Resent-From: ietf-http-wg(a)w3.org > > From: Mark Nottingham <mnot(a)mnot.net> > > Date: 3 November 2010 8:57:30 PM AEDT > > To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg(a)w3.org>, zongning(a)huawei.com > > Subject: Fwd: I-D > Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt > > archived-at: > > > <http://www.w3.org/mid/12A744C7-1C13-4AD4-9947-DBBD8CBF81AC@mnot.net> > > > > I wanted to bring this draft to the attention of the list, > as I think it's some of the better and more complete work > I've seen in an area that seems to be interesting to a lot of > people these days: > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analy > > sis-01.txt > > > > My specific feedback: > > > > Overall this is comprehensive and helpful in moving the > discussion forward. Please continue! > > > > It may be useful to further separate the "real-time" / > "live" streaming case from others, as it most likely requires > a different approach (as noted in the draft). If you're not > already aware of it, you should have a look at the results of > the Realtime Web workshop, as well as the ongoing discussion: > <http://rtc-web.alvestrand.com/>. > > > > While it appears that all of the approaches you cover are > compatible with "generic" HTTP, I wonder how compatible they > are in the details. For example: > > a) is it possible to serve video for each using only a > "vanilla" HTTP server like Apache or IIS, without any extra > modules or server-side scripts? Setting headers and serving > files from the filesystem is fine, as is having a process > that writes the files to the filesystem for you. > > > > b) how compatible is each approach with off-the-shelf HTTP > caches? E.g., if there's significant variance in the URIs > (because of dynamic parameters being passed in), it'll "bust" > the cache and lower the hit rate. I know that most of them > are not using HTTP range requests; it would be interesting to > explore this a bit more. > > > > It would also be very helpful to see examples of the actual > HTTP messages (with headers and bodies) used by the various > approaches, to give a better idea of how they use the protocol. > > > > Regarding the lack of QoE improvement and monitoring (in > "Challenges"), my interest is in what can be done by clients > to minimise delay, quantify the quality of the connection, > and adapt without coordination with the server. Adding server > hints to responses would be helpful too, of course, but I > suspect that a lot more can be done on the client side > (perhaps without standardisation; documenting best practices > may be enough). > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org > >> Date: 25 October 2010 10:00:02 PM AEDT > >> To: i-d-announce(a)ietf.org > >> Subject: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt > >> Reply-To: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org > >> > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > >> > >> Title : Survey and Gap Analysis for HTTP > Streaming Standards and Implementations > >> Author(s) : N. Zong > >> Filename : draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt > >> Pages : 23 > >> Date : 2010-10-25 > >> > >> With the explosive growth of the Internet usage and > increasing demand > >> for multimedia information on the web, media delivery over > Internet > >> attract substantial attention from media industry. To meet above > >> requirements, HTTP Streaming technology is designed and gradually > >> plays an important role in recent years. Several leading Standard > >> Development Organizations (SDOs) have been producing a series of > >> technical specifications to define streaming over HTTP. Moreover, > >> several companies have devoted to developing private > HTTP-based media > >> delivery platform to provide high quality, adaptive viewing > >> experience to customers. Following a brief survey of > existing HTTP > >> streaming standards and implementations, this document > gives a brief > >> summary on these related work, analyzes the potential challenges > >> especially from the network point of view, and lists the > gap between > >> existing work and possible working scope on the topic of HTTP > >> streaming in IETF. > >> > >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-anal > >> ysis-01.txt > >> > >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >> > >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > >> Internet-Draft. >

1 0

Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt
by Mark Nottingham 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

FYI. Probably not in-scope here because of the realtime aspect, but as I say, there seem to be lots of different people interested in this general area... Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: ietf-http-wg(a)w3.org > From: Mark Nottingham <mnot(a)mnot.net> > Date: 3 November 2010 8:57:30 PM AEDT > To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg(a)w3.org>, zongning(a)huawei.com > Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt > archived-at: <http://www.w3.org/mid/12A744C7-1C13-4AD4-9947-DBBD8CBF81AC@mnot.net> > > I wanted to bring this draft to the attention of the list, as I think it's some of the better and more complete work I've seen in an area that seems to be interesting to a lot of people these days: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-0… > > My specific feedback: > > Overall this is comprehensive and helpful in moving the discussion forward. Please continue! > > It may be useful to further separate the "real-time" / "live" streaming case from others, as it most likely requires a different approach (as noted in the draft). If you're not already aware of it, you should have a look at the results of the Realtime Web workshop, as well as the ongoing discussion: <http://rtc-web.alvestrand.com/>. > > While it appears that all of the approaches you cover are compatible with "generic" HTTP, I wonder how compatible they are in the details. For example: > a) is it possible to serve video for each using only a "vanilla" HTTP server like Apache or IIS, without any extra modules or server-side scripts? Setting headers and serving files from the filesystem is fine, as is having a process that writes the files to the filesystem for you. > > b) how compatible is each approach with off-the-shelf HTTP caches? E.g., if there's significant variance in the URIs (because of dynamic parameters being passed in), it'll "bust" the cache and lower the hit rate. I know that most of them are not using HTTP range requests; it would be interesting to explore this a bit more. > > It would also be very helpful to see examples of the actual HTTP messages (with headers and bodies) used by the various approaches, to give a better idea of how they use the protocol. > > Regarding the lack of QoE improvement and monitoring (in "Challenges"), my interest is in what can be done by clients to minimise delay, quantify the quality of the connection, and adapt without coordination with the server. Adding server hints to responses would be helpful too, of course, but I suspect that a lot more can be done on the client side (perhaps without standardisation; documenting best practices may be enough). > > Cheers, > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org >> Date: 25 October 2010 10:00:02 PM AEDT >> To: i-d-announce(a)ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action:draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt >> Reply-To: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> >> Title : Survey and Gap Analysis for HTTP Streaming Standards and Implementations >> Author(s) : N. Zong >> Filename : draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-01.txt >> Pages : 23 >> Date : 2010-10-25 >> >> With the explosive growth of the Internet usage and increasing demand >> for multimedia information on the web, media delivery over Internet >> attract substantial attention from media industry. To meet above >> requirements, HTTP Streaming technology is designed and gradually >> plays an important role in recent years. Several leading Standard >> Development Organizations (SDOs) have been producing a series of >> technical specifications to define streaming over HTTP. Moreover, >> several companies have devoted to developing private HTTP-based media >> delivery platform to provide high quality, adaptive viewing >> experience to customers. Following a brief survey of existing HTTP >> streaming standards and implementations, this document gives a brief >> summary on these related work, analyzes the potential challenges >> especially from the network point of view, and lists the gap between >> existing work and possible working scope on the topic of HTTP >> streaming in IETF. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zong-httpstreaming-gap-analysis-0… >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >> Internet-Draft. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce(a)ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

2 1