- 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>
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, Alexey 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RTMP is out of date already, using TCP-based protocol for real time audio 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, >Alexey > >Oct 16, 2012, в 8:01 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> >написал(а): > >> 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