IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

"Richard Shockey" <richard@shockey.us> Tue, 06 July 2010 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949243A690F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.128, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 87YxAE6ZufHH for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy1-pub.bluehost.com [66.147.249.253]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 709343A6A49 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4151 invoked by uid 0); 6 Jul 2010 17:06:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy1.bluehost.com.bluehost.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2010 17:06:44 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=shockey.us; h=Received:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:thread-index:Content-Language:X-Identified-User; b=G96b+foelx3pi7Kaa/gMoIqU6rwxahH6L26bua3Ed7xABma3Afj2EDr5rn41q9G/x2XDiuaPIcoX6wOEbtMY7t6Fbtpxtpex0CpjjCGCq4yaRzzktccj4+ZuELJRwxse;
Received: from pool-96-231-199-72.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([96.231.199.72] helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1OWBbY-0000Lr-EJ; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:06:44 -0600
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: 'Adam Roach' <adam@nostrum.com>, 'Peter Musgrave' <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com>
References: <AANLkTintQWiM1BNi1Lz11i4AEUm4vnpFhHNRPRMs6ctG@mail.gmail.com> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04022F40FB@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <AANLkTinCs4ooaP7qczjOf_CMJB2tZg9XR9Ro5H-WWHK6@mail.gmail.com> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04022F4219@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <001201cb1ade$4195f680$c4c1e380$@us> <AANLkTimGO9mf_q78EYJJ_UwuM834m3vJ0i4BiGqEB4KJ@mail.gmail.com> <009f01cb1bba$4c7bcd40$e57367c0$@us> <4C32199A.80809@cisco.com> <008d01cb1c72$9bdb96a0$d392c3e0$@us> <7E21458B-10A8-468F-8344-9374B3D1EBAE@insensate.co.uk> <01f801cb1caa$5667eaa0$0337bfe0$@us> <AANLkTimfo4UVcjS9N2Es01_GOZnWcYH7Bc2iRmPRQTXZ@mail.gmail.com> <4C333D8E.6090505@nostrum.com> <AANLkTilIbT7hNvCwPeXxOoaQb2kD0x95o5LiPBry8e-D@mail.gmail.com> <4C334E37.10200@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C334E37.10200@nostrum.com>
Subject: RE: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:06:42 -0400
Message-ID: <016401cb1d2d$9c240050$d46c00f0$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: AcsdIXVXlk+egPk+RxKOOUgrlTHuOgAC40xQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 96.231.199.72 authed with richard@shockey.us}
Cc: 'Cullen Jennings' <fluffy@cisco.com>, 'DISPATCH' <dispatch@ietf.org>, 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>, jonathan@rosen.net
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:06:44 -0000

Adam is entirely right here. The question is do you want to standardize such
a service in the IETF. "Best Efforts" is not a problem on the Internet in
general. After all about 14% of all international call traffic is now going
over Skype.

You simply have to make that clear from the outset which is why IMHO the
charter as it is currently written is unacceptable.  

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam
Roach
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:40 AM
To: Peter Musgrave
Cc: Cullen Jennings; DISPATCH; Richard Shockey; IETF-Discussion list;
jonathan@rosen.net
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3

  On 7/6/10 10:00 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
> Yeah. Sigh.
>
> I guess the issue then becomes whether this is enough of a step in 
> right direction that it can be built on - and whether it's worth the 
> effort.
>
> Cullen/Jonathan - can you speak to any of the operational issues 
> w.r.t. 'failure surprise' in the existing implementation?

Well, to be clear, with voice communications, you don't end up with 
"random failure surprise". You end up with "random quality surprise". 
Some of your voice communications go over whatever codec your device 
uses for VoIP, which is probably a nice broadband codec. But some calls 
will randomly use the PSTN, with an 8 kHz sampling frequency and a 
notch-pass filter at 2600 Hz.

While that's kind of an unpleasant property, it's not enough to 
disqualify it from normal business use.

My point was that it's not a reasonable multimedia solution. If all 
you're looking for is feature parity with the PSTN, it's a passable 
solution, even if just barely.

/a
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email