Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Thu, 13 February 2014 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271C81A033A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:50:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 L_tnsHFcevEu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:50:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576641A001E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:50:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id lx4so2937496iec.29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:50:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EP5IEL8u5nuXKAtUhwScdXqX8uB1CIaYOEyX2QpvddE=; b=GWQZX+5BjcDJQUhgcPjHNv+ac5YGw3F+2r6n58ylQ86y9xxiPiCLV1zayrUe0WZf/c cE1M1G8g9aSDFqHF4oIndmlU8tZCbA753lcgBAIXzfxzlnvND7ovNcRNLZ15xPCU9u/y X7QqudfTheMbPtS4gASCd4PXLEO9wNID2+wifpUf6ZRYbdMljLVE2nVMI2mUp+9KkAX9 CBvQOhW+t0aX5/1lm/XVOB825i1BHUtUsQLBZnqCiVloYRBITb6MCx/hE7qJuli14J/3 Q/4CzBrv2mNJbQB+75SZrGqT4dV6T1FJpMzUTkNR76v59AeqszeKYP4xzhKWEd4WqM0H QiaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnoqW3X4WYge8wsA2pFth/3uWrYkHzm7Qc9u5EGrfLqWqKh5cjp3zIwOviBqnbKyJT2QAOa
X-Received: by 10.50.20.100 with SMTP id m4mr5863265ige.17.1392335448957; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m6sm10081522igx.9.2014.02.13.15.50.47 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52FD5A4E.8060604@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:50:38 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
References: <CAD6AjGRiQ1UF5n3JG9HPRQFM+TD54Xz-dpTn5u9bX+__BMfesQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVbZp7yBvpY1ARuaBXS=TOipY=BhXzrd=h5DY-76oF9Pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSxS4jNRGotsE_no0XhewvDqcVZ+Kmx1aMW9qorqSKR+w@mail.gmail.com> <52FD2FA4.8040701@alvestrand.no> <CAD6AjGTbSJEV2cJj5QyLktyZPv8SJa7h-QHKVtdUXnF3K6xwHA@mail.gmail.com> <52FD46F4.7030804@bbs.darktech.org> <CAA93jw4_+xAVza-YDpPD80Fj749i=vgOSz7sAty_Zp4U2TuO6g@mail.gmail.com> <52FD4C82.8040300@bbs.darktech.org> <CAA93jw5gEUzQeF74o_tt5KgdqFiedXzT5G0WdARsdcRnVEe6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw5gEUzQeF74o_tt5KgdqFiedXzT5G0WdARsdcRnVEe6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/-oyCSDyNlrKU2PceXsdxVCBkP48
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 23:50:53 -0000

On 13/02/2014 6:00 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:51 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>> On 13/02/2014 5:46 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> The biggest downside, as I see it, is targeting advancements in the state
>>> of
>>> the art, at windows. 98% of the world or so run non-windows based cell
>>> phones and tablets, and in terms of total users, probably outnumber
>>> the windows contingent at this point.
>>>
>>> SCTP and MPTCP are quite feasible on android and IOS.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how many smartphones there are. What matters is how many
>> of them will be used to do meaningful video chat. The screen real estate on
>> these devices is way too small.
> In my experience, everybody is using tablets and handheld devices for
> video chat.
> It is a natural extension of the usage of the device to extend it from
> phone calls
> to video calls.
>
> The lack of a working camera on most desktops is a hindrance, and the placement
> of cameras on most laptops is not ideal.

All laptops and tablets come with decent cameras. I will agree that 
WebRTC on tablets will be strong, but smartphones is really pushing it. 
Most of the time I've seen people engage in video chat it was between 
family members; far less for business use. And in those cases, I've seen 
people jump on tablets and laptops instead of having to deal with a 
tiny, underpowered smartphone for video. These are just personal 
observations, not science, so please take them with a grain of salt.

Gili