Re: bandwidth conservation use case, objection to use of Range for non-byte sections

Dear Conrad,

There are two topics in this email (not a good practice from my point of 
view). I'm answering them but would like that the discussion is split 
with relevant subject heading.

> I would like to introduce a use cases that is not covered by the
> existing specification: that a user agent may wish to retrieve a media
> resource in chunks, so that the amount of content buffered ahead of
> the user's current play position does not grow too large.

Great. We are always keen of adding more use cases descriptions and then 
decide whether we want to support it or not and check later on whether 
the spec actually supports it or not.
We can naturally update the Use Case & Requirements document. May I 
suggest you propose a paragraph describing this use case, in the same 
spirit as the other use cases, that we can paste verbatim in the 
document? Would you like to take such an action?

[snip]

Regarding the objection part:

> I think it is useful to agree on a specification that meets the aims
> of this working group without requiring all WWW implementations to be
> rewritten. Hence I object strongly to
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/WG_Resolutions#Media_Fragment_Headers
> and instead suggest the use of this minor variation that does not
> overload the existing Range/Content-Range transport mechanism.

Could you be more precise on what exactly you object from 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/WG_Resolutions#Media_Fragment_Headers? 
Actually, you should now look at 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/MediaFragmentHeaders

We have edited this live this afternoon. It is indeed misleading that 
this work in progress is written in the WG Resolution wiki page since no 
resolution has been taken *YET*.

I have created a new wiki page with this work in progress, see 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/MediaFragmentHeaders.
The status of this page is "work in progress".

> Concerning the process of resolutions: I was not present for that
> resolution as it was after midnight here, and had already raised this
> objection and suggestion during the teleconf prior to its discussion.

You're absolutely right and I apologize for the misunderstanding. All 
the information written this afternoon has never been formally approved 
and even proposed to be approved.

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 00:25:19 UTC