W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Relevant Protocols for Media Fragments

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:23:58 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830901271623h69dd0f54n8cc8bb9d606087af@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM, RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote:
> Dear All,
> Following a previous message from Silvia [1], I'm re-opening this
> discussion, see also a new wiki page [2]:
>> I have just edited the section
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Use_Cases_%26_Requirements_Draft#Relevant_Protocols
>> on protocols in the use cases and requirements document and removed
>> some discussion around which protocols we are covering and moved it
>> into the original use cases and requirements document at
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Use_Cases_Discussion#Media_Delivery_UC.
> Basically, we agreed to consider mainly HTTP and RTSP, and Silvia added:
>> I did indeed research the protocol case and found that almost all p2p
>> protocols are proprietary, and that bittorent in particular already
>> has an internal mechanism for receiving fragments of media files
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29). p2p
>> protocols are mostly about receiving long files and playing them back
>> at a later time - so the need for addressing fragments doesn't seem to
>> be there.
>> As  for mms: it was deprecated by Microsoft in 2003 and is not even
>> supported in their latest software any longer.
>> These were the reasons that I thought neither mms nor the p2p
>> protocols were relevant to our work. However, feel free to disagree.
>> :)
> I would love to agree, but my recent experience told me I should not :-)
> Concretely, I went to my favorite portal to watch scientific talks,
> namely http://www.videolectures.net, a very large portal that contains
> videos synchronized with slides of all sort of scientific talks from
> conferences and lectures from all other the world in various
> disciplines, and it is growing very very fast! Among others, I could
> watch some of the talk I did, for example:
> http://videolectures.net/iswc08_troncy_biptc/
> Now, looking at the source of this page, I can get two streamable
> version of my talk:
>  - wmf format available through the mms protocol:
> mms://oxy.ijs.si:8080/2008/active/iswc08_karlsruhe/troncy_biptc/iswc08_troncy_biptc_01.wmv
>  - flv format available through the rtmp protocol:
> rtmp://velblod.videolectures.net/video/2008/active/iswc08_karlsruhe/troncy_biptc/iswc08_troncy_biptc_01.flv
> RTMP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_Messaging_Protocol, is a
> proprietary protocol developed by Adobe for streaming flash, that works
> overt HTTP(S).
> Conclusion: large video portal, widely used by the scientific community
> ... but no HTTP or RTSP protocols involved for streaming the bits! They
> choose to go for proprietary protocols (Adobe, Microsoft), right, ...
> but should we put them out of the future rec?

It's a proprietary protocol. We have no authority over it. All we can
do is recommend they adopt our scheme.

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 00:24:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:41 UTC