Re: [MMUSIC] RID open issue #5: max-fps
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 14 March 2016 05:36 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6729412D94C for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qbAsyIlDu1qH for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E7012D5C2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x235.google.com with SMTP id vf5so52994792igb.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=IMGInLiudoUStDVf066DZarl3gl4GJimqY5tJ2jyQ9g=; b=o52GHot1YmH3FPI/UYgqW7Q/9jcYaRxz9Ejj/IoOBXNPYIXxi5kI6m2sYqkXy6IlCk aT1HlD9+FdcwNkyRyCE0e7rg0zC4bsoV8ZtDaCdN3FdN1YkOPPHm7Umzqny9sdieZcbj WMakUg6ALnHGSTTtyJ/kMhbubghtStBXCJZbVu+GlArsVjugJmCYYz6lv3SvDXEH7Ej0 bp05BouFvA1L3nBDxRF/X7MWlj05D9UnQAqwrMJ/FE6zfnSpr9xkfwQ8ervvNcm5gB0e xYzxNmmUZo5HZVPx4ihJXXlmv8H9hg8WIhYeKCZ2vfsXWmuMZq1wV2fF4QR+26oQkwCt /nPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=IMGInLiudoUStDVf066DZarl3gl4GJimqY5tJ2jyQ9g=; b=jpwafYWh8uNR7LFpTUD+Z5HFARmJWJVnW1qeZMNa3YQEqj9Pg0IhSlVV9qUkPm/qpL wvWMTXVhrCwNwLLMsO1B1koyI77Gb+exXWpiZQCSKupYoi20aVADAkpq8rml8N/XvaR8 kz8G5n8OzRrUxTfGz0oZQc7jCEBmodGWroN8BB5qbGRmggPYvOHHyUlKqQs1P6GVwT7s IynnwPV8djuN37S0ThVT3b0I5uxy1fNQViE9YbznTAYumuqEX6smTwr4NKuFqXGzM+7x pRkgA5vI6oR441GnoBU+WY2hbB+1J7NFR0HggbsYgIEAujdJWLxCFunOaaU/RKVbKGM6 EXMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJsxz+eRo2A3E5WKSkJJ3tBSJLvTZvK3qj7T97Mzk3jraGHVJjLeNZWltwuL/xV6j5tHr/HgM9/WzjH9g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.43.226 with SMTP id z2mr16301810igl.94.1457933777893; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.43.5 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56E3091A.1030005@nostrum.com>
References: <56E3091A.1030005@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:36:17 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVp1X2CnOO-i+qqQBGi0ez_0Tecm0QrAP9dZjFKWW-b-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/nEzNcALvYr6dVAJi8sJMSCD4HhA>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RID open issue #5: max-fps
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 05:36:20 -0000
On 12 March 2016 at 05:06, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > PROPOSAL: Keep as currently defined. The difference is subtle. The > only kinds of cases allowed by an average that aren't allowed by a > minimum interframe interval are those such as sending no packets for > most of a second, followed by a burst of 30 frames 1 ms apart, as > part of a stream constrained to 30 fps. Such cases seem undesirable. I agree with this. Note also that if this is a constraint imposed by a decoder that can only render at 33ms intervals (maybe because it just takes that long), the latter example will cause bad things to happen.
- [MMUSIC] RID open issue #5: max-fps Adam Roach
- Re: [MMUSIC] RID open issue #5: max-fps Martin Thomson