W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Proposal for support of RTMP

From: Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:31:20 +0400
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: "bouras@cti.gr" <bouras@cti.gr>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Vaggelis Kapoulas <kapoulas@cti.gr>, Andreas Papazois <papazois@ceid.upatras.gr>, "AShani@exent.com" <AShani@exent.com>
Message-ID: <CCA57C4A.1F82E%alexey@zingaya.com>
About overhead I meant that there is RTMP inside RTMFP, RTMP itself has
overhead, so there is overhead in the end. I don't think Adobe is going to
open it anytime soon, and there is no RFC for it, while all other
protocols mentioned there are already standardized.

Best Regards,

10/18/12 1:01 AM пользователь "Matthew Kaufman"
<matthew.kaufman@skype.net> написал:

>RTMFP is complicated. But I wouldn't say "too complicated"... in fact it
>is probably less complicated than SDP O/A + RTP + SRTP + DTLS-SRTP + ICE
>+ SCTP, which you'd need all of and then some to replicate what it does.
>Also, I don't know why you'd say "offers too big overhead (compared to
>RTP)"... in fact, the overhead for transmitting media streams over RTMFP
>is lower than an equivalent RTP session.
>As for it being a proprietary protocol, this is true, but something Adobe
>could remedy if they so desired.
>Matthew Kaufman
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alexey Aylarov [mailto:alexey@zingaya.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:05 AM
>To: Harald Alvestrand
>Cc: bouras@cti.gr; public-webrtc@w3.org; Vaggelis Kapoulas; Andreas
>Papazois; AShani@exent.com
>Subject: Re: Proposal for support of RTMP
>RTMP is out of date already, using TCP-based protocol for real time audio
>and video communication isn't a good idea
>Adobe has implemented RTMFP protocol in Flash (ver. higher or equal to
>10), it is UDP-based and supports p2p, but it's proprietary protocol that
>can't be use as a standard for W3C and IETF. More of that, it's too
>complicated and offers too big overhead (compared to RTP)
>It's better to focus on WebRTC development
>Best Regards,
>Oct 16, 2012, в 8:01 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>> Sorry to be discouraging, but I think this is outside the scope of our
>>present work.
>> As presented in your document, RTMP is a server-based protocol. The
>>charter of this WG is for peer-to-peer work.
>> Also, protocol work should go to the IETF, not to the W3C.
>> If the group is rechartered to take on server-based work, it is
>>possible that we may return to this issue.
>>                   Harald Alvestrand
>> On 10/16/2012 02:51 PM, bouras@cti.gr wrote:
>>> Dear Working Group Members,
>>> I send you this email on behalf of Computer Technology Institute and
>>>Press (CTI) "Diophantus" (http://www.cti.gr/) a member of "The
>>>Community Network Game" (CNG) project's consortium
>>>(http://www.cng-project.eu/). CNG is a research and development project
>>>funded by European Commission under FP7/ICT programme.
>>> During our research and development work in CNG, one of the activities
>>>we are responsible for is the identification of possible contribution
>>>to standards. Given that our work also included research and
>>>development activities on Web Technologies we have the following
>>>interesting idea that may contribute to your standardization processes
>>>within W3C.
>>> Our idea is the support of Real-Time Messaging Protocol (RTMP) in the
>>>future JavaScript standard. RTMP is a protocol developed by Adobe for
>>>the support of a higher-level multimedia stream.
>>> Kindly find more information in the attached document.
>>> I am available to provide you any further information on this.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Christos J. Bouras
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 05:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:30 UTC