[codec] #27: Testing Impact on IP on Codec Performance

"codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Sun, 02 May 2010 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D133A695B for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2010 05:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.177
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.177, BAYES_50=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nAHbYVMPqMox for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2010 05:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028B33A691C for <codec@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 May 2010 05:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1O8YXs-0007m6-Lz; Sun, 02 May 2010 05:45:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.6
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.6, by Edgewall Software
To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de
X-Trac-Project: codec
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 12:45:16 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/codec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/27
Message-ID: <062.5f24684b1812b35d7a153e141fffc149@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 27
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de, codec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: [codec] #27: Testing Impact on IP on Codec Performance
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: codec@ietf.org
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: Sun, 02 May 2010 12:45:32 -0000

#27: Testing Impact on IP on Codec Performance
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  requirements            |     Version:     
 Severity:  Active WG Document      |    Keywords:     
 The CODEC shall be tested against realistic traces of IP packets. The
 draft writes

    "The actual packet
    loss "patterns" to be used in testing must be obtained from real
    packet loss traces collected on the Internet, rather than from loss
    models.  These traces should be representative of the typical
    environments in which the applications of Section 2 operate.  For
    example, traces related to VoIP calls should consider the loss
    patterns observed for typical home broadband and corporate

 Hoene wrote
 "  The testing of ACS and the quality characterization shall be
    performed with real network profiles such as with [TIA-921] or those
    given in the appendix [TS.26114-830], not with fixed set of "average
    distributed errors and losses". Later do not clearly reflect the
    Internet nature."

 The ITU-T has standardized G.1050 (aka TIA-921) and Telchemy is providing
 an open source implementation:

 But then again, which glue (rate control, dejitter buffer) shall be used
 between IP and codec?

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/27>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>