[R-C] Charter

[Stefan Holmer]

I agree on this input as well, and I particularly like the "reasonable
share" parts.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for all your inputs! I agree with all of them, from Matt and John,
> except:
>
> (snip, snip...)
>
>
> >   In case the above isn't sufficient to start some flame-wars, I also
> > strongly suggest adding language better defining the problem, to cover:
> > - RMCAT strongly wants low delay and low jitter
> > - RMCAT can tolerate loss better than high delay
> > - RMCAT prefers consistent bandwidth to inconsistent high bandwidth
> > - we posit that RMCAT can reasonably adjust slower than TCP
>
> because, indeed, as Randell says, this edges towards a solution space. Low
> delay has always been there, I added "and low jitter" now - but the other
> things are assumptions that I think we shouldn't make (in particular the
> third item). They may or may not be correct, depending on the codec in use,
> and so this gets too narrow IMO if we write it in the charter.
>

In addition this is not only focused on video or audio streams, but also
data streams which may prefer inconsistent high bandwidth than a lower
consistent bandwidth.


>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtp-congestion mailing list
> Rtp-congestion at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtp-congestion/attachments/20120807/3956f6ea/attachment.html>