Re: [rtcweb] UDP transport problem

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Sun, 16 February 2014 14:03 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 C6E121A01FA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 06:03:21 -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 6_pWypNgjG7c for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 06:03:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53621A0110 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 06:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 81755 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2014 14:03:17 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 1839
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 16 Feb 2014 14:03:17 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1088818A0C51; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:03:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from limit.westhawk.co.uk (limit.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0BF818A0B54; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:03:13 +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: <52FD5A4E.8060604@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:03:07 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CE142A3F-F105-4E9A-AF64-C42A052F448A@phonefromhere.com>
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> <CAA93jw5gEUzQeF74o_tt5KgdqFiedXzT5G0WdARsdcRnVEe6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <52FD5A4E.8060604@bbs.darktech.org>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/tv3MHYTnBeqayXpx7xA6ZZZhPxg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org >> rtcweb@ietf.org" <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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:03:22 -0000

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