- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:23:58 +1100
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Raphaël 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. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 00:24:36 UTC