Re: [ledbat] [R-C] LEDBAT vs RTCWeb

[Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Stefan Holmer wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>  
> wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
>
> On 04/20/2012 07:55 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> Hi Randell,
>
> I didn't follow the whole discussion but regarding LEDBAT we have a  
> TARGET
> delay of max. 100ms. That means you can choose a smaller one. We've  
> chosen
> 100ms as a max as there is an ITU recommendation that 150 ms delay is
> acceptable for most user voice applications and we wanted for sure  
> stay below
> that.
>
> 100 ms + 75ms speed of light delay across the US (or equivalent across
> Europe, for example) + 100ms at the receiving end....
>
> Of course, it's even worse between continents, even without broken  
> networks.
>
> Not so nice....
>
> Not argueing about your point here (I agree that we have to fix the  
> edge), but: LEDBAT is an end-to-end mechanism, so I think that the  
> 100ms reflect the total measured end-to-end delay.
>
> Is this really the case? I interpret that the target (100 ms) refers  
> to queueing delay, since LEDBAT tries to minimize target -  
> queueing_delay, where queueing_delay = current_delay - base_delay.  
> Could be wrong though.

Sorry, my bad (I think).

Cheers,
Michael