Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Don't exclude a @serviceLocation for a time-limited period equal to the last steering server TTL #29

Open
edouardbe opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
accepted-needs-implementation Accepted and needs implementation

Comments

@edouardbe
Copy link

Hi

Following the issue #22

n 20-c we say: "it shall exclude that @serviceLocation for a time-limited period equal to the last steering server TTL that it received."
We are also interested on why decoupling TTL and penalty period is a specific use case.
We are happy to collect feedback if this requirement causes issues in practical deployments, If so please file a new issue that explains the problem. Thank you

Thanks Thomas for asking.

This issue is linked to the #23 manage the content steering response in a static base64 data uri. If there is no need to call any external content steering service because the content steering manifest is static and written in the MPD directly, then there is no TTL on the content steering manifest anymore. If there is no more TTL on the content steering manifest and the exclusion duration of a service location is coupled with the content steering manifest TTL, it means the exclusion duration will be infinite.

I heard again in the DASH-IF Special Session: MPEG-DASH 6th Edition Feature video recording that the team tries to converge with the HLS content steering feature. If they can do it, why can't we with DASH?

Regards
Ed

@haudiobe
Copy link

Live TF 2024/04/19

  • We could support the feature by replacing the current functionality (using TTL) with a default value (or we could even add a new attribute).
  • Would need an amendment to our specification
  • Please provide feedback if amending the according to the above principle is a good way forward.

@haudiobe haudiobe added the encourage-discussion Encourages discussion label Apr 19, 2024
@haudiobe haudiobe added accepted-needs-implementation Accepted and needs implementation and removed probable-agreement-please-comment labels Nov 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
accepted-needs-implementation Accepted and needs implementation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants