W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > June 2018

RE: WebRTC NV Use Cases

From: Zhu, Jianjun <jianjun.zhu@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:27:47 +0000
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
CC: Mészáros Mihály <misi@niif.hu>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F44519725EC0F14CBCF0E49928343F793BEB1C6E@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Besides minimizing latency and battery usage, I think it also helps to reduce the binary size of a WebRTC endpoint running on IoT devices or mobile phones.



Best Regards,
Jianjun

From: Peter Thatcher [mailto:pthatcher@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 3:04 PM
To: Zhu, Jianjun <jianjun.zhu@intel.com>
Cc: Mészáros Mihály <misi@niif.hu>; public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: WebRTC NV Use Cases

How does disabling encryption help other than saving some minimal CPU?  You can still do broadcasting and DRM even if there is hop-by-hop encryption.


On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:00 AM Zhu, Jianjun <jianjun.zhu@intel.com<mailto:jianjun.zhu@intel.com>> wrote:
Disabling encryption might be useful for
(1) one-way large scale broadcasting, which could be a replacement of RTMP
(2) when other content protection method is enabled, such as DRM.



Best Regards,
Jianjun

From: Peter Thatcher [mailto:pthatcher@google.com<mailto:pthatcher@google.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 2:21 AM
To: Mészáros Mihály <misi@niif.hu<mailto:misi@niif.hu>>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org<mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WebRTC NV Use Cases

That's something that already comes with the encoder and transport objects we're proposing.  I'll add this as a use case with those requirements.

I don't think the WG will agree to removing encryption.

What checksum are you referring to?



On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 5:23 PM Mészáros Mihály <misi@niif.hu<mailto:misi@niif.hu>> wrote:

You are right it is low latency audio and video.

The key how low it could be. Ultra low latency is important for performing arts.

Requirements what I could think about is to turning off the jitter buffer totally, raw audio codec, (may skip encryption), no packet checksum counting, so to avoid anything that could add any latency.

Misi

2018-06-18 17:05 keltezéssel, Peter Thatcher írta:
How is it different than an audio call, which allows attempts to be as low-latency as possible?  Is there a requirement for this use case that we don't already have?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:43 AM Mészáros Mihály <bakfitty@gmail.com<mailto:bakfitty@gmail.com>> wrote:
2018-05-09 21:29 keltezéssel, Bernard Aboba írta:

On June 19-20 the WebRTC WG will be holding a face-to-face meeting in Stockholm, which will focus largely on WebRTC NV.



Early on in the discussion, we would like to have a discussion of the use cases that WebRTC NV will address.



Since the IETF has already published RFC 7478, we are largely interested in use cases that are either beyond those articulated in RFC 7478, or use cases in the document that somehow can be done better with WebRTC NV than they could with WebRTC 1.0.



As with any successful effort, we are looking for volunteers to develop a presentation for the F2F, and perhaps even a document.


Hi,

Let me add one possible WebRTC Use Case: Ultra Low Latency audio/ video for musical performances and other performing arts with WebRTC
Tuned WebRTC stack for ultra low latency.

SW/HW solution that we use actually to solve the use case
e.g.

  *   http://www.ultragrid.cz/

  *   https://www.garr.it/en/communities/music-and-art/lola


Read more on tools and use case on https://npapws.org/ :

  *   https://npapws.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/S.Ubik-J.Melnikov-Network-delay-management-2017.pptx

  *   https://npapws.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Performing-Arts-and-Advanced-Networking.pptx


Regards,
Misi

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2018 07:28:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:42 UTC