Re: [codec] Suggested summary...
"Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen" <rchen@broadcom.com> Sat, 10 July 2010 01:39 UTC
Return-Path: <rchen@broadcom.com>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D393A6949 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5MdIq6-NW4g for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MMS3.broadcom.com (mms3.broadcom.com [216.31.210.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BB93A68D9 for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.9.200.131] by MMS3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:39:35 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: B55A25B1-5D7D-41F8-BC53-C57E7AD3C201
Received: from IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.252.49.30]) by IRVEXCHHUB01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.9.200.131]) with mapi; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:39:35 -0700
From: "Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen" <rchen@broadcom.com>
To: Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:39:34 -0700
Thread-Topic: [codec] Suggested summary...
Thread-Index: AcsRZil0HQ7IYcfiQc6J3HE4d/X1hQIVooqAACKzfyAATIw04AEJJkJw
Message-ID: <CB68DF4CFBEF4942881AD37AE1A7E8C74BA6C854AA@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <062.7439ee5d5fd36480e73548f37cb10207@tools.ietf.org> <3E1D8AD1-B28F-41C5-81C6-478A15432224@csperkins.org> <D6C2F445-BE4A-4571-A56D-8712C16887F1@americafree.tv> <C0347188-A2A1-4681-9F1E-0D2ECC4BDB3B@csperkins.org> <u2x6e9223711004210733g823b4777y404b02330c49dec1@mail.gmail.com> <000001cae173$dba012f0$92e038d0$@de> <r2q6e9223711004211010gfdee1a70q972e8239fef10435@mail.gmail.com> <001101cae177$e8aa6780$b9ff3680$@de> <t2t6e9223711004211119i6b107798pa01fc4b1d33debf1@mail.gmail.com> <002d01cae188$a330b2c0$e9921840$@de> <CB68DF4CFBEF4942881AD37AE1A7E8C74AB3F4A017@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <4BD11C50.2020206@usherbrooke.ca> <CB68DF4CFBEF4942881AD37AE1A7E8C74AB3F4A270@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <12151537-165D-426A-B71F-8B3D76BE4854@cisco.com> <CB68DF4CFBEF4942881AD37AE1A7E8C74B901372FE@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <20100430230756.13687lc1s5o89gsc@mail.skype.net> <CB68DF4CFBEF4942881AD37AE1A7E8C74B90345522@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <"CB68DF4! ! ! ! ! CFBEF49428 8C74 B9 043D 30 B"@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <909E12B9-984F-4051-A93E-2291EFE0A40E@cisco.com> <CB68DF4CFBEF4942881AD37AE1A7E8C74B9BE9EDB7@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <20100526151326.2882694zuaeslk3q@mail.skype.net> <CB68DF4CFBEF4942881AD37AE1A7E8C74B9BE9F2E7@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <20100526214255.206532jzf8wjld1r@mail.skype.net> <002901cafd89$acf402e0$06dc08a0$@de> <19367DD02EBD40829869907AEA0CE128@china.huawei.com> <000601cafd9b$148fd850$3daf88f0$@de> <568A92CB079CCF43BA5C8D7B08BCB4AE817DCBA900@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <002501cafdb4$09394810$1babd830$@de> <56E363F9-AB88-43A3-8ECC-99A7E9796330@cisco.com> <001901cb19ce$a074d600$e15e8200$@de> <CB68DF4CFBEF4942881AD37AE1A7E8C74BA6870837@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <002901cb1b7d$94cb3b40$be61b1c0$@de>
In-Reply-To: <002901cb1b7d$94cb3b40$be61b1c0$@de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-WSS-ID: 602910DD3KC33074012-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Cc: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] Suggested summary...
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:39:45 -0000
Hi Christian, Comments in-line, with my new comments preceded by ">>>[Raymond]:" to make it easier to identify. Raymond -----Original Message----- From: Christian Hoene [mailto:hoene@uni-tuebingen.de] Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 6:34 AM To: Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [codec] Suggested summary... Hi Raymond, Inline some comments of mine are inline Christian -----Original Message----- From: Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen [mailto:rchen@broadcom.com] Hi Christian, Thanks for your summary. Some comments on 2) and 3) below. 2) low complexity mode: All else being equal or comparable, the lower the complexity, the better. Besides MIPS or WMOPS, the memory footprint is another important aspect of complexity that should be considered. [Christian Hoene] Any suggested minimal and median values? >>>[Raymond]: I would suggest taking a look at the memory footprint numbers of many contemporary codecs in some codec comparison tables such as those in Annexes C and D of PacketCable 2.0 codec and media spec for narrowband and wideband codecs, respectively, at http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/PKT-SP-CODEC-MEDIA-I09-100527.pdf Whether the complexity is "low" is in a relative sense. I think it makes sense to call a codec's complexity low if it is below the median value of the complexity of contemporary codecs at the same sampling rate. Some may even argue that it has to be far below the median to be called "low". Using the Annex C above and excluding very old codecs such as G.711 and G.726, the median RAM size is about 2.6 kwords and the median ROM size is about 12 to 14 kwords for narrowband (8 kHz sampling) codecs. Similarly, using Annex D gives a median RAM size of 4.6 to 5.3 kwords and a median total memory footprint of 19.4 to 23 kwords for wideband (16 kHz sampling) codecs. Furthermore, if we want to specify a complexity target, then in addition to a target for the full-band 48 kHz sampling rate, it would be useful to specify also the complexity targets for lower sampling rates such as 16 and 8 kHz, since the codec may operate at these lower sampling rates in some important voice-centric applications. [Christian Hoene] Upps, the minimal complexity values were meant regardless of the sampling rate >>>[Raymond]: Using a single complexity target for all sampling rates doesn't make sense to me, as it could be too tight a constraint for high sampling rates and too loose a constraint for low sampling rates. It makes more sense to have separate targets for at least 8, 16, and 48 kHz sampling rates. If we follow the same logic as in memory footprint above, then the median complexity is 20 MIPS for 8 kHz sampling and 17.5 MIPS to 38 WMOPS for 16 kHz sampling. I know 17.5 to 38 is a wide range. That's an inherent problem with taking the median of an even number of entries. If we take the average in this case, it is 25.3 MIPS/WMOPS. I know MIPS is not the same as WMOPS (usually slightly higher than WMOPS), but that was how the complexity data were collected, and since we don't have access to all complexity data using only MIPS or only WMOPS, I was forced to treat the two as roughly equivalent for the purpose of deriving median or average. 3) How latency sums up: Thanks for mentioning the ITU-T G.114, which has a good discussion of the codec-related one-way delay along the line of what we discussed in the emails. [Christian Hoene] Yes, but I forgot to mention that is was industry consensus ten years ago. Things have changed. >>>[Raymond]: Things certainly have changed, especially the processor speeds, but I am not sure that the industry consensus has changed much. If it did, you would expect that the ITU-T would probably update G.114. I think the reality is that most of the voice communications today (all the conventional land-line phones, cell phones, IP phones, etc.) are still handled by embedded processors in special-purpose hardware devices, which don't have the luxury of having a DSP that is 100 times or even 10 times faster than the speed required by all real-time tasks of the system combined. Thus, I would say the delay analysis in G.114 is still relevant today. In fact, one could even argue that some values of the delay components G.114 are on the low side as the wait time in RTS scheduling does not seem to be taken into account there. Hence, it seems to me that the delay values presented in G.114 are more like lower bounds of the delay values likely to be encountered in the real world. However, I disagree with the statement that "Typical values are range from a factor faster of 100 (smart phones) to 1000 (PCs). A device working at full load is a rare case." It is not at all a rare case to find devices running at or close to full load. A good example is VoIP gateways. [Christian Hoene] Sorry, a telecommunication network overrating at full load is a rare case. For example, around New Year's Eve networks tend to become overloaded: 2h per one year. Typically, the network shall be loaded somewhere between 5 and 20% or less. Even if you assume that all traffic is between end device and gateway (which is not the case - end to end IP is a more reasonable scenario), then the gateway is fully loaded less than 1<% of the time. >>>[Raymond]: Even if the overall network traffic load is relatively light, you still cannot rule out the possibility that some gateways may be significantly more loaded than others. More importantly, the delay depends on how the real-time scheduling system is designed and may not necessarily depend on the traffic load. If you take a conservative approach and design your RTS system for the worst-case processing load, then even when the traffic load is lighter, the delay through the system remains the same. If you try to design the RTS system to reduce the delay aggressively when the traffic load is lighter, then certain real-time tasks may run out of real time if you are not careful, resulting in audio quality degradation. In any case, VoIP gateways were just given as an example. How about other devices with embedded processors such as IP phones? Their processor load doesn't depend on the traffic load and can be nearly fully loaded, so I would say a device working at (nearly) full load is not a rare case. Also, in numerous occasions I have seen engineers trying very hard to cut the complexity of algorithms to make them fit the processing power of existing DSPs or host processors. That means the resulting implementations would have the processor essentially fully loaded. The fastest processors in current smart phones and PCs are about 1 GHz and slightly more than 3 GHz, respectively. A factor of 100 and 1000 faster would require that the codec complexity be less than about 10 MHz and 3 MHz, respectively. Most contemporary codecs today have higher complexity than that. [Christian Hoene] Then take the value 10 and 100. It still does not matter. >>>[Raymond]: My real point is that even if the processor MHz rating is 10 or 100 times the codec complexity MHz requirement, it doesn't mean that your codec processing delay will be 1/10 or 1/100 of the frame size. You can achieve such a processing delay of 1/10 or 1/100 of the frame size only if the processor is immediately available to do the encoder task and decoder task as soon as the last audio sample of the frame and the last bit of the compressed frame arrives, respectively. We know that this is generally not true because there is almost always some other real-time tasks in the system which can be running at those particular time instants and the encoder and decoder tasks just have to wait for their turns. My original paragraph below in my last email discussed this point. Even if the codec complexity were lower than these numbers, to achieve a delay reduction factor of 100 and 1000, the encoding and decoding operations would each have to be the only real-time task or the highest-priority task so the processor will get to it right away without any delay. This is not the case in general, since having a full-duplex channel will requires at least a real-time encoding task and a real-time decoding task running at the same time. Both cannot be the only real-time task or the highest- priority real-time task at the same time; furthermore, there are almost always some other real-time tasks in the system. As I discussed in length in my previous email about Real-Time Scheduling (RTS) delay, most audio/video communication systems have many real-time tasks running at the same time; substantial delay needs to be added to ensure that none of such real-time tasks will run out of real time. This often leads to an RTS delay of one frame. [Christian Hoene] Let me cite from TI specs of the TNETV3020 carrier grade voice gateway: "Processing delay in the Telogy Software solution is minimized by a staggered processing schedule". TI engineers do not have the same technical problems as Broadcom engineers. This paper (or any other) on the topic of staggered scheduling might be helpful http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.7213&rep=rep1&type=pdf >>>[Raymond]: First, I checked the product bulletin of TNETV3020, and other than the sentence "Processing delay in the Telogy Software solution is minimized by a staggered processing schedule" that you quoted above, it doesn't say anything about how low the latency is or the relationship between the processing delay and the codec frame size. This generic statement does not prove or disprove anything related to what we are discussing, and it does not say anything about the technical problems facing TI engineers and Broadcom engineers. Second, I read the Holman and Anderson staggered model paper that your link points to, but I am not sure it is relevant to what we are discussing here. If I understand it correctly, that paper is talking about scheduling the processors of a symmetric multiprocessors (SMP) system in a staggered manner to reduce the wait time due to bus contention. That's very different from what we are talking about here, which is how to schedule multiple real-time tasks in a single-core processor without letting any of the tasks running out of real-time. Best Regards, Raymond -----Original Message----- From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hoene Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 3:09 AM To: 'Cullen Jennings' Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: [codec] Suggested summary... Hello, taking Cullen advise, I would like to suggest the following summary. > 1) low delay mode The codec shall be able to operated at a mode having an algorithmic delay of 8ms or less while having a frame duration of 5 1/3 ms or less. This is require to support ensemble performances over the Internet and other highly interactive conversational tasks. > 2) low complexity mode (whatever this means) The codec shall be able to operate at a low complexity mode while requiring less computational resources than a AMR-WB codec (< 38 WMOPS if measured with ITU-T STL2005 BaseOP (ITU-T G.192)). > 3) technical understanding on how latency sums up on different platforms Standard ITU-T G.114 (05/00 and 05/03) describes how different system components contribute to the one-way transmission delay. It states that the processing time of the codec contributes with an additional delay as large as the frame duration. However, it is common consensus that plenty computational resources will be available most of the time. Then, the codec processing will be much faster than one frame duration. Typical values are range from a factor faster of 100 (smart phones) to 1000 (PCs). A device working at full load is a rare case. Any suggestion to improve it? With best regards, Christian --------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532 http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/ -----Original Message----- From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:21 PM To: Christian Hoene Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? On May 27, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Christian Hoene wrote: > So, we have consensus on > 1) low delay mode > 2) low complexity mode (whatever this means) > 3) technical understanding on how latency sums up on different platforms From a Chair point of view, I don't think the Chairs could summarize or call consensus on these three - however, I'm not sure that matters. If you think a key piece of consensus has come out of this conversation and that it needs to captured in the archive, can you summarize what you think it is folks agree with and then the chairs can make some sort of consensus call. Thanks, Cullen <with my chair hat on> = _______________________________________________ codec mailing list codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
- [codec] #16: Multicast? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Colin Perkins
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Colin Perkins
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Colin Perkins
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? (Bluetooth) Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? (Bluetooth) Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? (Bluetooth) stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? (USB) Roni Even
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? (Bluetooth) Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #19: How large is the frame size depe… Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #19: How large is the frame size depe… stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #19: How large is the frame size depe… Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? (Bluetooth) Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Ben Schwartz
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Brian Rosen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. Ben Schwartz
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. Ben Schwartz
- Re: [codec] #20: Computational complexity? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. jari.hagqvist
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. Ben Schwartz
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] Thresholds and delay. Michael Knappe
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Delay factor: algorithmic delay … Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Delay factor: algorithmic delay … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [codec] #16: Delay factor: algorithmic delay … Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] #16: Delay factor: algorithmic delay … stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Sandy (Alexander) MacInnis
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] #16: Multicast? Cullen Jennings
- [codec] Suggested summary... Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Michael Knappe
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Herve Taddei
- Re: [codec] Suggested summary... Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen