Subject: [MMUSIC] Re: [Sipping] What role (if any) for IMS/SIP in a Streaming Service:IMS/SIP - RTSP interworking

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:27:13 +0100

Hi Henry,

Packet-based Streaming Service (PSS) which is defined by 3GPP SA4 WG has 
a model that isn't related to a walled garden at all. The intention of 
that work is to allow RTSP streaming clients to use content both in the 
operators service network and on the Internet.

In fact the whole solution is based on very minor sub-setting of RTSP 
and with a well defined set of codecs. It does provide some more 
features in the later releases, like bit-rate adaptation, Quality of 
Experience reporting, possibility to serve DRM handled content.

The basic idea was to ensure that there was a description of how RTSP 
based streaming can be done to mobile phones and which can be 
implemented with in the restrictions the mobile phone provides. The goal 
is interoperability with an open standard allowing for competition. 
Which is something that has succeeded. There are very many different 
implementations of the PSS client and servers. They are interoperating 
as IMTC IOTs has shown.

So not everything is walled gardens, and when it comes to 
content-delivery wall garden becomes very difficult for your business. 
Content is most likely available from outside of your own network and 
locking the users into what you as an operator provide is bad for business.

What an operator can benefit from is to provide a charging solution for 
premium content. Thus simplifying for both users and content-providers. 
But this is benefiting from having more information rather than locking 
the users in.

You should also be aware of several other groups (e.g. ISMA, DLNA) that 
do provide streaming solutions which is heavily loaded with IETF defined 
components. Sure, several of different groups has defined extensions 
that they have seen need for. Mostly due to that IETF moves so slowly, 
but also a felling that it wasn't need somewhere else than in there 
usage model. The last may or may not be true. In fact several of the 
extensions that 3GPP has come up in the PSS context seem to be escaping 
out into more general usage.

 From this I at least can conclude that any new work in the area of 
content-distribution should ensure that it receives requirements and 
feedback from these groups. Otherwise the end-product will not be as 
useful for them and the wide spread use of open protocols may be 
hampered. Also more profiling or sub-setting would probably be used 
reducing the interoperability between solutions and introduce higher 
costs for everyone as less reuse of solutions will occur.

Cheers

Magnus

Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> Since the IETF works for the _OPEN_ Internet, there seems to be no rationale
> in a partnership with organizations that promote walled gardens, such as
> 3GPP or Packet Cable. Closed systems can deploy anything they want.
> 
> It would be regrettable IMHO if the IETF would legitimize walled gardens in
> any shape or form, since they are the very opposite of the Internet. There
> is no way to gloss over this fact.
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:48:28 -0600

Magnus,

>Packet-based Streaming Service (PSS) which is defined by 3GPP SA4 WG 
>has a model that isn't related to a walled garden at all.

Then why not subject it to the IETF review and standards process?

>What an operator can benefit from is to provide a charging solution 
>for premium content.

You are describing technology promoted by companies and consortiums to
support their business development plans, in this case putting the
"operator" in the middle between the content provider and the user. 

While this is perfectly legal business, it is hardly in the Interest of the
IETF to promote any particular technology in support of a business model.
There are far too many other stakeholders on the Internet, not even counting
users that may not happen to like your business plans in the first place,
since it empowers carriers over end users and negates the e2e Internet
control principle.

I would go on, but sorry to all on the list. This discussion does not belong
here. Just let us know where we can step outside to continue this discussion
:-)

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 3:27 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Pascal Dore'; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Sipping] What role (if any) for IMS/SIP in a Streaming
Service:IMS/SIP - RTSP interworking

Hi Henry,

Cheers

Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund