Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Thu, 21 July 2011 05:49 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FF321F8AF0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUrc5Z6skBLs for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4FF21F8AE6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-61-4e27be04713b
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 02.5C.20773.40EB72E4; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:49:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [150.132.141.68] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:49:55 +0200
Message-ID: <4E27BE02.7090606@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:49:54 +0200
From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com>, <37897D97-85A9-4B21-85C3-A7E9BE1EF3E7@cisco.com>, <4E26B742.6050606@jitsi.org>, <62C71813-83B4-44D3-8E54-28262311CDB3@cisco.com> <BLU152-W38359A17A67825B59CD5D0934C0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W38359A17A67825B59CD5D0934C0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 21 Jul 2011 05:49:58 -0000

On 2011-07-20 16:24, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>

>  > My experience is the answer to the first scenario is not as quick as
> you would like and the answer to how long the second takes is about 8
> times longer than the first one. You might do a bit better than that
> depending on how clever your implementation is but it still a lot longer.
(I think Colin concluded it would be 2 not 8)
>
> [BA] Yes, that is correct. However at the moment I'd characterize that
> as a "high quality problem", since it isn't even clear that the current
> WHATWG API can handle that case, due to glare and ICE timing issues.
Not sure what you're meaning. We've made an experimental implementation, 
and do not see glare or ICE timing issues.