Adam is entirely right here. The question is do you want to standardize such
a service in the IETF. "Best Efforts" is not a problem on the Internet in
general. After all about 14% of all international call traffic is now going
over Skype.
You simply have to make that clear from the outset which is why IMHO the
charter as it is currently written is unacceptable.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Adam
Roach
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:40 AM
To: Peter Musgrave
Cc: Cullen Jennings; DISPATCH; Richard Shockey; IETF-Discussion list;
jonathan(_at_)rosen(_dot_)net
Subject: Re: [dispatch] VIPR - proposed charter version 3
On 7/6/10 10:00 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
Yeah. Sigh.
I guess the issue then becomes whether this is enough of a step in
right direction that it can be built on - and whether it's worth the
effort.
Cullen/Jonathan - can you speak to any of the operational issues
w.r.t. 'failure surprise' in the existing implementation?
Well, to be clear, with voice communications, you don't end up with
"random failure surprise". You end up with "random quality surprise".
Some of your voice communications go over whatever codec your device
uses for VoIP, which is probably a nice broadband codec. But some calls
will randomly use the PSTN, with an 8 kHz sampling frequency and a
notch-pass filter at 2600 Hz.
While that's kind of an unpleasant property, it's not enough to
disqualify it from normal business use.
My point was that it's not a reasonable multimedia solution. If all
you're looking for is feature parity with the PSTN, it's a passable
solution, even if just barely.
/a
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf