- From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:32:48 +0000
- To: orif@qwilt.com
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, ggie@ietf.org, Ali_Begen@comcast.com
- Message-ID: <CALGR9obZgmLPuzD8iCYg0ifonheweYAv-uew+ZjPYHAt2QU-Og@mail.gmail.com>
Ori, Thanks for sharing this, and the authors for writing this up. What's captured in the document broadly matches my experiences in this space. The problems can be real. A broker server, dimensioned to handle a low rate of playlist requests, may end up getting overwhelmed with client media requests. This is hard to predict because client implementations are diverse; new things come along, and existing ones may regress. I am aware of non-IETF efforts that attempt to characterise client behaviour like this, and it wouldn't surprise me if the effort is duplicated across different content or service providers. I support discussion that can address this issue but have no strong opinion on the final solution at this time. Lucas On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 1:13 PM Ori Finkelman <orif@qwilt.com> wrote: > > [Resending as I have sent to the wrong list] > > > Hello , > > HTTP redirect, usually using 302 Found, is widely used in video CDN for > HTTP Adaptive Streaming (HAS) protocols, specifically for HLS and DASH. > Using HTTP redirect instead of the more commonly used delegation by CNAME > is a much more powerful and flexible solution. > > At a high level, the required behavior is that after getting an HTTP > redirect to a playlist address that takes the client to a CDN cache, if the > playlist contains > relative references to the media segments, the client should be "sticky" > and request the subsequent media segments directly from the cache without > the need > for repeated redirects that would add undesired latency and harm QoE. > However, due to misinterpretations of the RFC in some cases, and > contradiction between this requirement and the existing RFC in other cases, > we face many > issues with clients that behave differently in the case of HTTP redirect, > when relative references are being used. > A discussion of this use case can also be found in section 2.2.1 of > RFC6983 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6983#section-2.2.1>. > > The Streaming Video Alliance (SVA) and DASH Industry Forum (DASH-IF) are > attempting to resolve these issues and create clear guidelines describing > how video players, > browsers and streaming applications should behave in such HTTP redirect > cases. > > The attached I-D includes a detailed description of this issue, examples > with our understanding of the current behavior and proposals for > alternative approaches for solution. > We were hoping that the members of HTTPBIS working group could share their > views regarding the preferred approach in order to resolve this issue. > > If there is interest and some available time I can prepare a quick slide > deck for the httpbis meetings next week. > > > Best regards, > Ori > > > > -- > > *Ori Finkelman*Qwilt | Work: +972-72-2221647 | Mobile: +972-52-3832189 | > orif@qwilt.com > -- > > *Ori Finkelman*Qwilt | Work: +972-72-2221647 | Mobile: +972-52-3832189 | > orif@qwilt.com > -- > > *Ori Finkelman*Qwilt | Work: +972-72-2221647 | Mobile: +972-52-3832189 | > orif@qwilt.com >
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2018 13:33:22 UTC