Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Thu, 13 February 2014 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dave.taht@gmail.com>
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 047F51A0029 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:01:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 FaUp-ujDue40 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:01:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22a.google.com (mail-qc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4A91A001A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:01:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id e9so19333297qcy.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:00:59 -0800 (PST)
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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4EbrBqEp03+nDPxvrS7NT2jdEJ9/0KlcHfCziqpa8Og=; b=qwmtbMwW+E+YUJ5HGi/n5CQaXLsAsFQvD95eqo72S/Yuc9f+5StlV4SeGY+b4RjGTc scefUpOPRzbr3oAno85obQcT/P93oFFHJSfKs/BuAaFmxGXa6sNRncS4YvBdW1Qp+6ZX 1E/qPl3rISYKNqw0KeeM6ZFrYnGk4lHjp1BArlQkzKWnzJ/rcR7JhKyEHI6hKiKd70Cn iqH/pTNt/cjsu2E9GA+Y2d4VuPWWVDTJW/ST2/qNjeUGFOby8DYcsIq5SGT8Y+/Gb2lx 7/uC2JMtSnda3+GHQqogWb95j38NcJzk3erTJliUBCspGPGXR+DetJVy635z9z5Ey4fT 0eJw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.49.9 with SMTP id p9mr6774892qga.75.1392332459825; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:00:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.27.133 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:00:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52FD4C82.8040300@bbs.darktech.org>
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>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:00:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA93jw5gEUzQeF74o_tt5KgdqFiedXzT5G0WdARsdcRnVEe6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/RtaaJ1ygGCr7gmVg8erOKLomYlY
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 23:01:03 -0000

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.

>
> So yes, mobile is huge, but from the point of view of WebRTC, Windows is
> still king.

I am under the impression that this is actually backed by statistics, but am
interested in recent statistics for things like google hangouts and facetime.

> Gili



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html