W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: iPhone streaming Internet-Draft posted

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:27:18 -0700
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, http-live-streaming-review <http-live-streaming-review@group.apple.com>
Message-Id: <8B8ACBD9-3114-48CE-AA9B-2336CB10FCA6@mnot.net>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>

On 04/08/2009, at 3:04 PM, David Singer wrote:

[ on CDNs]

> We have. They were not receptive to supporting custom headers, much  
> less rearchitecting to supply arbitrary ranges of an infinitely- 
> growing resource out to the edge.

That makes sense; I had been thinking more about the recorded  
broadcast use case, not live. Although in practice most streams won't  
be really infinite (and indeed archiving may be useful in *some*  
cases), it is a limitation for ranges.

In theory, one could define a new, time-based range unit to address  
this, but I can understand why you'd be reluctant to do so, as it  
would take non-trivial work on the server.


>> It would be extremely simple to add this information elsewhere;  
>> either in the format itself, or in headers.
>
> Getting something like this "implemented widely" enough to drive all  
> these changes is a chicken-and-egg problem that we are not out to  
> solve. We've had enough trouble getting people to support content- 
> range requests for progressive downloads, and that's been in the  
> standard for years.

True. However, you've go a big iPhone-shaped hammer; I'd encourage you  
to use it -- if not here, perhaps elsewhere -- to push the limits a bit.


[ On IPR]

> Yes, we'll keep you updated on our public statements.


Thanks.

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 16:27:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT