IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Tue, 14 January 2014 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.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 0067E1AE183 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:00:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 4hdsbgVFOxrF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001.apm-internet.net (smtp001.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.220]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B701AE17E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 61371 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2014 16:59:43 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 12609
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 14 Jan 2014 16:59:43 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D4418A0D59; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:59:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from limit.westhawk.co.uk (limit.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F1CE18A0D54; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:59:43 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEFAABA0.3F7F7%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:59:42 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <34D5CA53-067D-4AE5-A784-1DADCF45BB26@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CAHp8n2kq+_uG=9XwoAGtRgqYU2Asc2Fv6RZ0aCW6cJi-LnhD+A@mail.gmail.com> <10390_1389365676_52D009AC_10390_2407_1_2842AD9A45C83B44B57635FD4831E60A06CBE540@PEXCVZYM14.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <52D0222F.4010006@bbs.darktech.org> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B112238@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAHp8n2=m3i77SNPZWmJchqVdg1c2WEJCt5g-pFRfmeWA2yV5xw@mail.gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B114B2D@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <2521C21F-8D06-4AB1-916A-B1861FB38F2A@phonefromhere.com> <CEFAABA0.3F7F7%stewe@stewe.org>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies
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: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:00:01 -0000

On 14 Jan 2014, at 16:55, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 1/14/14, 4:35, "Tim Panton" <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 14 Jan 2014, at 10:22, DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In those terms, I do not believe that is what they were showing, at
>>> least according to the reports I have seen.
>>> 
>>> Further, apart from any processing power, the critical issue is the
>>> delay involved in any conversion, and I have no figures for that from
>>> this demonstration, and I suspect you do not either. Given that you must
>>> receive frames to do the conversion, my belief is that we will still be
>>> talking both decode and encode delay at the conversion point of the
>>> order of 60 - 70 ms, whatever mechanism is used. That is a significant
>>> take from the limits specified in ITU Recommendation G.114.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Keith
>>> 
>> 
>> My experience of the existing mass h264 deployments in the mobile space
>> is that they like to split the the audio and
>> video media paths. (You'd need to do this in any gateway to these legacy
>> systems). 
>> This means that they can get out of sync. This would be made worse by
>> transcoding the video leg.
> 
> RTP is designed to take care of this.


Not if audio and video are on separate calls - which seems to be what RCS/joyn 
expects.

T.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email