Re: [rtcweb] Common ways of handling video conferences? (Re: Why requiring pre-announcement)

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 5/17/13 4:30 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
> On 16.05.13, 23:28, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 05/16/2013 09:22 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>>>> Then it is another
>>>>> question if it happens via SDP or via RTP header extensions or some
>>>>> other means.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a discussion at the Stockholm rtcweb interim on what
>>>>> topologies that would be supported, but I fail to remember if this case
>>>>> was included or excluded.
>>> I couldn't find the discussion (in what WG did it happen?) but
>>> topologies based on RTP translators of one sort or another seem to be
>>> the default way of handling video conferencing these days so I don't see
>>> how we could possibly rule them out.
>>>
>>
>> This is an interesting statement. I've also heard the claim that "RTP
>> translators hardly exist outside the lab" - I think that quip was
>> referring to RFC 5117 section 3.3 Topo-Trn-Translators, the story may be
>> different for Topo-Media-Translators - but I thought the most common
>> form was the section 3.4 Topo-Mixer?
>
> Until recently, yes certainly, mixers were prevalent (which is arguably
> part of the reason why very few people had access to video conferencing).
>
> I think we'd all agree that this doesn't seem to be the case any longer
> and that for various reasons (including cost, quality and flexibility),
> most of the conferencing solutions today prefer shifting packets rather
> than mixing content.

I would like to understand: when "most" is used in this discussion, what 
are we measuring?
- number of distinct implementations (code bases) using this approach?
- number of conference sessions set up using this approach?
- number of conference user-minutes using this approach?
- something else

I'm asking because I have no idea and I'm curious.

	Thanks,
	Paul