Subject: [httpstreaming] Why a new standard for streaming HTTP?

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:24:53 -0500

Given the rapid rollout of HDTV over streaming HTTP in the market and the
huge traffic it generates, an IETF standard is highly desirable.

Most large content providers state their HTDV and other content (such as SW
distribution) is delivered over standard HTTP 1.1.
* So is there anything to standardize at all?
* If yes concretely what items?
* Examples of usage scenarios that require a new protocol or extensions,
specifically such as...?

Arguments for if/why/how to impact the huge infrastructure that has been
proven to work well and is clearly accepted Œas is¹ by the application
developers - the critical stakeholders.
This infrastructure is very expensive and hard to change. This is the reason
the added value has moved up into the application layer, where developers
are not constrained by the infrastructure: Web browsers (admittedly a moving
target) Web servers and CDN. At the cost of peering bandwidth...

The I-D: draft-wu-http-streaming-optimization is a good start and could
actually also address the issues ³what is the problem² in way that speaks to
CDN operators, browser and application developers and ISPs. Should it be
extended to also provide a gap analysis? Or just a table for now, to discuss
during the coming BOF?

To stay focused on the real world, to attract the players in the industry
(and less the habitual RFC writers) and to make the proposed WG successful,
input is required IMO first and foremost from:

1. Streaming media browser and application developers
2. CDN operators  
3. Other stakeholders such as ISPs concerned about interconnect bandwidth,
proliferating CDN servers and network equipment providers.

As mentioned on the list, closed network folks are better served in other
SDO 
(IP works so well in a context: the Internet. It is the missing word from so
many of their documents).

Last, but not least, observing the admirable flexibility of the hybi WG in
redirecting their work, this future WG may also have to be flexible and if
so warranted to refocus, leave HTTP alone (it is handled in the httpbis WG),
see what would be more helpful to standardize in the application layer, in
the HTTP payload, such as metadata.

A whole list for the required expertise to do this work comes to mind:
* From the Web industry and from experts that have made streaming HTTP
happen
* From ISPs that worry about peering bandwidth and co-locating so many
different edge CDN servers

Scheduling two successive BOFs seems to be a good idea.
Get all these folks together on how to best coordinate the combined effort.

Henry 

Freshly inspired by the new
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol/

====================

On 9/25/10 2:33 AM, "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Good to see this activity within IETF and highly welcome.
> 
> As you described below, there are already several SDO activities, and
> particularly they have their own direction and schedule toward the market.
> http-adaptive streaming (MS) and http-live streaming (Apple) are already
> implemented in the commercial level. 
> 
> I believe, IETF should pay attention to the coordination among the existing
> activities/solutions, and particularly clarify the role for each in order not
> to make a duplication. Otherwise, this activity will be very confused in the
> market. Why ? It is because IETF rides in the train too late unfortunately.
> 
> For doing that, gap analysis on the existing methods is the first, then we
> will be able to see which areas should be done by IETF based on the results of
> analysis. This direction seems very acceptable to me. 
> 
> Anyway, I support, and hope to move it forward quickly.
> 
> 
> Daniel