>If you implement RFC 6285, you dont need frequent I-frames, either. This is
>something implemented in most IPTV deployments.
Yes, RFC 6285 provides a way of how to achieve low latency for a user. If we'll
go back to your initial question ("And where is the borderline?"), the
borderline is interaction. If an immediate reaction can be needed (video
conferencing, switching between channels), latency should be kept low.
Otherwise, it can be high enough.
>IPTV does not (and should not) mean DASH like streaming services or
>progressive download. IPTV means multicast for linear delivery and unicast for
>VoD delivery over a QoS enabled SP network (not even the open Internet).
Does it mean that if we do not have QoS enabled SP network, it is not IPTV
anymore? I guess this definition is a bit restrictive. Many people watch movies
and live programs using their SmartTV, laptops, tablets, and even smartphones
connected to the open Internet, not to "a QoS enabled SP network". I don't
think it's reasonable to ignore this use case for an Internet video codec
(projects like Open IPTV or Android TV )
>I gather that what is meant by "interactive" is real time communications. If
>you limit the netvc effort to only real time communications then you are
>ensuring that it will not have a chance to be dominant once it is complete
>because the argument for adoption will be weakened by the fact that another
>codec will be needed for the high quality material.
I entirely support this point of view.
_______________________________________________
video-codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
