IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Tue, 14 January 2014 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
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 0A19B1AE1B9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:55:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 zrKnkCw-NksO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0152.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B3C1AE11C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.22) by CO1PR07MB361.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.842.7; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:55:29 +0000
Received: from CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.85]) by CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.186]) with mapi id 15.00.0842.003; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:55:28 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Comment on Straw Poll replies
Thread-Index: AQHPDesrlAD8HxWcikiJR9XVZugWsZp+C+sAgAAdOYCABJflgIAAr8eAgACYf4CAACURgP//woSA
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:55:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CEFAABA0.3F7F7%stewe@stewe.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <2521C21F-8D06-4AB1-916A-B1861FB38F2A@phonefromhere.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [12.226.90.11]
x-forefront-prvs: 0091C8F1EB
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(679001)(689001)(779001)(24454002)(43544003)(51704005)(199002)(189002)(479174003)(49866001)(4396001)(74502001)(87266001)(79102001)(54356001)(80976001)(66066001)(81542001)(65816001)(77096001)(87936001)(47736001)(90146001)(85306002)(47976001)(76796001)(74366001)(93136001)(76482001)(50986001)(80022001)(2656002)(76786001)(74706001)(47446002)(56816005)(46102001)(92726001)(81816001)(31966008)(36756003)(74662001)(81342001)(92566001)(77982001)(81686001)(59766001)(51856001)(19580405001)(83072002)(53806001)(69226001)(85852003)(74876001)(19580395003)(83322001)(54316002)(63696002)(56776001)(42262001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR07MB361; H:CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:12.226.90.11; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8D8010149916CF49BD501A9DEDD5D589@namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
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 16:55:46 -0000

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.

>Although there is a counter argument that they are already unacceptable,
>so 70ms won't make any difference.
>
>T.
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email