Subject: iPhone streaming Internet-Draft posted

From: Roger Pantos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 13:36:53 -0700

My apologies if this is a bit off-topic. I just posted the following
Internet-Draft:

    This document describes a protocol for transmitting unbounded  
streams
    of multimedia data over HTTP.  It specifies the data format of the
    files and the actions to be taken by the server (sender) and the
    clients (receivers) of the streams.  It describes version 1.0 of  
this
    protocol.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming/

The folks on this list have a great deal of expertise on HTTP and  
specifications
in general. I would appreciate your feedback on the document, and the  
protocol
itself.

thank you,

Roger Pantos
Apple, Inc.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:21:48 +1000

Hi Roger,

I had a quick look over this. My impression was that the relationship  
to HTTP is pretty tangental; i.e., you may only intend to use this  
over HTTP, but there's not much (anything?) HTTP-specific about it.

As such, it may be better to position this as a format description (or  
indeed a description of an extension to an existing format), rather  
than something HTTP-specific. E.g., a good name might be 'Live  
Streaming Extensions for the M3U Playlist Format.'

One question -- why do all of your tags begin with 'EXT-X-'?

Cheers,

On 02/05/2009, at 6:36 AM, Roger Pantos wrote:

> in general. I would appreciate your feedback on the document, and  
> the protocol
> itself.
>
> thank you,
>
> Roger Pantos
> Apple, Inc.
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Vitaly Sharovatov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:48:30 +0400

Hi Mark

I completely agree with your point on this.

It's also interesting that Microsoft proposed similar IIS Smooth
Streaming technology a year ago, and their technology is far more
native to HTTP.

At least it allows HTTP to handle the resource expiration time (see
"section 6.2.3. Reloading the Playlist file" in Apple's spec), allows
HTTP to control caching (see EXT-X-ALLOW-CACHE tag description) etc.
etc.

I don't understand why Apple thinks it's OK to submit invented by
someone else technology without any references, add unneccessary level
of complexity by duplicating functionality which is already provided
by HTTP and call it HTTP Live Streaming. Sounds weird to me.

Here's my thoughts:
http://sharovatov.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/apple-submitted-http-live-streaming-spec-to-ietf/

Vitaly

2009/5/5 Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>:
> Hi Roger,
>
> I had a quick look over this. My impression was that the relationship to
> HTTP is pretty tangental; i.e., you may only intend to use this over HTTP,
> but there's not much (anything?) HTTP-specific about it.
>
> indeed a description of an extension to an existing format), rather than
> something HTTP-specific. E.g., a good name might be 'Live Streaming
> Extensions for the M3U Playlist Format.'
>
>>  This document describes a protocol for transmitting unbounded streams
>>  clients (receivers) of the streams.  It describes version 1.0 of this
>>  protocol.
>>