Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem
"Cynthia G. Anderson" <cganders@uw.edu> Sun, 16 February 2014 20:29 UTC
Return-Path: <cganders@uw.edu>
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 1E5971A0277 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:29:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 WeUwtE6YC5pt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:29:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB9A1A0068 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:29:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id x12so1712746wgg.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:29:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=O6Wkrveaknoa9zzwPrlGJqeJE1E+ptHjZorExjn7UZE=; b=QAuKo0QARQ8+q+X8VHduuXbznx3VHTUslenPb6IvM68QSf8A7DXq/T9Go/QZQ6cdhU tbwmGDxiMGbC/bSItfjVmUqBrnnUeNWREj94Xd+8Iki8zNgMMeAyQechpO7XYp5kdWzo wXa3SoPimJ8lLYKQ5tJoBbMHfjoiYijQ+LQFOZNSJQLuSdeJm+nkTcpb9cUZpdmo0I6g E5tFoYJt+RakXdcFqyHmT8MSeofwTqT8cmZmgjN4oqB54B6FHNnvgsUpCqiC1YLgMvyz NJ4AUU5hip7nRtGL2aXPE219M/tTYx02RE+eHT0pLym3T8VEEjzjRGyNl9C6GOpE8b8i O8HA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkEcPm7XL+sTfU36X2T+ntHdFMA5Y1UKCts4Vj/iZt1ZvEauim++i9av6mmzH+wkBslKjFn
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.2.70 with SMTP id 6mr14316111wjs.25.1392582576333; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.68.138 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.68.138 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:29:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAN=5t3n-yKhVyL8mWc3YPZyGiWC7ijo-e7zm5+eEqefcTXoF8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Cynthia G. Anderson" <cganders@uw.edu>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a8174c8733704f28be566"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/6_8RmO7BGnM-eEZKOezZhZd0I98
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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:29:43 -0000
Forgive me for adding in my own two cents, as I only recently joined the list ( as digest even), and am still reading like mad and trying to come up to speed on this huge, complex area.... But I do know something about UX and people behavior, so I must say I agree with Jeremy, you can't really assume that people won't do something. It is more typical for people to use any communication device in any possible way...even if it isn't ideal for the communication. Other factors often are more important, like being in a situation where a preferred device isn't available (examples. A car. A remote location. No wifi or connections. Not wanting to carry a larger device.) And beyond that, new tech emerges constantly, some fail, some fail but come back later ( like tablets, wearables, etc) and some devices get new looks and UX such that they suddenly catch on....ipod to iphone to ipad...and such pervasive popularity moves them from gadget to personal only to business use...which has happened with phones, the iphone inspired UX, and tablets....Linux was another success that also accelerated into wide acceptance when it became, not just more reliable, but also more *general* user friendly....it made it easier for techies to convince non-tech finance types to buy in.... So my 2cents, uninformed in many other ways, is to recommend assuming the widest possible usage and scale, if possible. I'll go back to lurking now.... ;) CG > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <jlaurens@cisco.com> > To: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> > Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org >> rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org> > Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:57:26 +0000 > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem > Why would we assume anything about the devices this stuff will run on in the future? Technology change tells me we'll all be wrong and underestimate what's next. Assume WebRTC on everything, including my smarty ring. :-) > > Jeremy > > > On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:03 AM, "Tim Panton" <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On 13 Feb 2014, at 23:50, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: > >> > >>> 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 > > > > Again, I disagree, I often use a smartphone for video, but only if I can airplay/chromecast the video to a suitable TV. > > > > > > T. > > > > > > Tim Panton - Web/VoIP consultant and implementor > > www.westhawk.co.uk > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtcweb mailing list > > rtcweb@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Michael Tuexen
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Dave Taht
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Dave Taht
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Dave Taht
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Dave Taht
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Michael Tuexen
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cb B
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem Cynthia G. Anderson