What items do you believe are in the way of good group conferencing? Regarding contributing a patch, that is a fair request, though I'm not sure that I have the resources either. Still, I will give it a shot if time permits.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand this point, but at present there are a number of other > things standing > in the way of doing good group conferencing, so we need to focus our > resources > on them first. > > However, If you would like to contribute a patch that did ICE-TCP, we > would be willing to dedicate some resources to helping you and/or > reviewing it... > > Best, > -Ekr > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:09 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for your response. Here's my plea for ICE-TCP ;) > > > > I know that TURN/TCP has landed in Fx28 and that is one way to establish > a > > TCP connection when UDP is blocked. However, UDP blockage is not the > only > > reason to require TCP. Currently, I think that there is no way to force > the > > client to use TURN/TCP when UDP is *not* blocked. > > > > The reason this matters to me is for a group conference with a large fan > > out. For example, 1 person is speaking, and his audio/video stream is > going > > out to 500 listeners. (a common scenario in my product). There is an > > enormous advantage to be gained if you can make sure no packets go > missing > > between the sender and the MCU. > > > > When it is possible to craft an offer containing a single ICE TCP > candidate, > > you can be certain that the sender is connected by TCP. However, if you > > have a UDP candidate only, along with a TURN server, the sender might use > > TURN/TCP, or he might not, depending on the connection check results. > > > > NACK exists for video packets, but audio is a different story, and some > > people's connections have high loss. When communicating 1:1 low latency > is > > more important than packet loss. When communicating 1:N, I think that > > packet loss on the sender-server leg becomes very important for large N. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> ICE-TCP is not currently scheduled. > >> > >> We are currently working on BUNDLE but don't have a schedule. > >> I did know that. > >> > >> -Ekr > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:29 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Can you provide an update on when these features are expected to land? > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > dev-media mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media > > > > > _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
