Hi, Alan, On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 11:55 AM Alan Frindell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kirill and I are scheduled to present this draft at the ART area session > (combined with DISPATCH) on Monday 7/26 from 12-2 Pacific. We’ve also been > approached by the MOPS chairs to present there, though that session > conflicts with QUIC. > We've gotta watch for this conflict ... but > I also scheduled a side meeting > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/111sidemeetings> during > Thursday Session IV (4:30 – 5:30 Pacific, vide conference details TBD) so > we can have more time to discuss the general problem space, requirements > and mailing list/BoF logistics moving forward. > Thank you for setting this up. It seems just about right. Best, Spencer > Thanks > > > > -Alan > > > > *From: *Martin Duke <[email protected]> > *Date: *Monday, July 19, 2021 at 7:45 AM > *To: *Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email protected]>, Victor > Vasiliev <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Roberto > Peon <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Mike > English <[email protected]>, Alan Frindell <[email protected]>, QUIC WG < > [email protected]>, Kirill Pugin <[email protected]>, Luke Curley < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Wish] [AVTCORE] Video ingest over QUIC > > > > This sounds like a side meeting that might lead to a BoF at 112? > > > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 5:18 PM Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, 19:36 Spencer Dawkins at IETF, < > [email protected]> wrote: > > This is, of course, why ADs get paid the big bucks (ha!), but > > > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:10 PM Mike English <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would personally be very interested in a "video over QUIC" working group > or mailing list. > > > > Martin Thompson said (in a reply that, I think, only went to the QUIC > mailing list(*)) that he thought this was big enough to BOF (which doesn't > mean it shouldn't be discussed at DISPATCH at IETF 111), but does say > something about what a mailing list could be used for. Offhand, I can > imagine: > > - discussion of the existing > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kpugin-rush-00.html draft > - discussion of potential scope for a BOF proposal > - discussion of proposed text for a BOF request > > Could I ask what the people who are expressing interest in a mailing list > are thinking about? > > > > +1. Good questions. > > > > There seems to be some appetite for _something_ that doesn't fit in > existing boxes. Defining exactly what might be would be a sensible step on > the path to a BoF. > > > > Cheers, > > Lucas > > > > > > Best, > > > > Spencer > > > > (*) email is archived at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/ocCm8E-GzP_pn4LBcJyKQeN7GRU/. > > > > The directness of this draft is perhaps what's most interesting to me. > In particular, the absence of out-of-band signaling / session > establishment stands in striking contrast with another UDP-based media > ingest option: WebRTC. > > The signaling needed for session establishment (and the diversity of > implementations for such signaling) has historically been a barrier for > WebRTC adoption as an ingest protocol outside of the browser context. > WISH-WG is working to improve that situation for WebRTC of course, but a > new QUIC-based ingest protocol presents an opportunity to sidestep some of > those known-issues by making an architectural decision up front about > whether that style of session management is necessary in a video > contribution workflow. > > I'm hoping others with more experience on these lists can speak to the > history and tradeoffs associated with those approaches, but I just wanted > to call attention to the aspect of the draft that seemed most notable to me > as an operator of a low latency streaming platform where WebRTC egress and > ingest capabilities are provided, but where RTMP is still the de facto > ingest protocol of choice for many users. > > Thanks for sharing this work! > -Mike > > > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:32 PM Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv= > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > > > Excited to see this draft! > > > > Since this isn't technically in scope for either avtcore, wish or quic > working groups, what would people think about making a new mailing list for > video over QUIC? > > > > Cheers, > > Victor. > > > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:27 AM Justin Uberti < > [email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:35 PM Roberto Peon <fenix= > [email protected]> wrote: > > Seems like a good idea to me, unless there is a home that is already well > suited! > > -=R > > > > *From: *QUIC <[email protected]> on behalf of Luke Curley < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:16 PM > *To: *Alan Frindell <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Sergio Garcia Murillo < > [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, Kirill Pugin <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Wish] Video ingest over QUIC > > > > Hey Alan, thanks for publishing your protocol! > > > > Twitch has also been working on a video over QUIC protocol, albeit > primarily for video distribution instead of contribution. We're very > interested in collaborating on RUSH and producing a new standard for live > streaming! Would there be broader interest in forming a video over QUIC > working group? > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:04 PM Alan Frindell <afrind= > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sergio, thanks for your interest in the draft. > > > > I’m interested in seeing a video ingest protocol standard that leverages > QUIC as a transport, has some partial reliability support, and is less > connection-oriented so that servers can go down for maintenance without > impacting ingest reliability or having arbitrarily long drain times. We > published our RUSH draft to help kickstart the conversation but we’re open > to feedback and modifications if they help advance those goals. > > > > Thanks > > > > -Alan > > > > *From: *Sergio Garcia Murillo <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 9:02 AM > *To: *Alan Frindell <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, Kirill Pugin <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Wish] Video ingest over QUIC > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > I think that the correct place for discussing it is AVTCORE as Bernard has > indicated, as WISH is not chartered to implement any new media protocol. > > > > The draft is very interesting and I would be willing to collaborate, what > is your main interest? Do you want to try to publish it as it is or would > you be accepting feedback and include modifications? > > > > Best regards > > Sergio > > > > > > > > El mar, 13 jul 2021 a las 17:37, Alan Frindell (<afrind= > [email protected]>) escribió: > > Hi, for several years, Facebook has been using its own video ingest > protocol over QUIC from our apps to our infra. While we’ve spoken about it > before, we just now published a draft documenting how it works: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kpugin-rush-00.html. > > The protocol leverages the advantages of QUIC transport, and features a > partially reliable mode using only QUIC v1 RST_STREAM. > > We welcome your feedback > > Thanks > > -Alan Frindell > > > > > > -- > Wish mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish > > -- > Wish mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish > > _______________________________________________ > Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt > > -- > Wish mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish > >
