[Bug 739868] rtpmanager: rtpjitterbuffer fixes and improvements

[GStreamer (GNOME Bugzilla)]

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=739868

--- Comment #55 from Sebastian Dröge (slomo) <slomo at coaxion.net> ---
(In reply to Miguel París Díaz from comment #53)
> (In reply to Sebastian Dröge (slomo) from comment #48)
> > Does Firefox really retransmit packets if you send a generic NACK? That
> > seems to be not defined by any RFC I read so far. RFC4585 for example does
> > not define any semantics at all for that:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4585#section-6.2.1 (it does define them only
> > in combination with e.g. PLI)
>
> I have done some tests with Firefox and I can confirm that it retransmits
> the packets if I request them using generic NACKs.
> So, we should take into account this case when applying the solutions about
> we are thinking.

Sure, there's currently nothing RTX specific planned at all for these things.
Nonetheless what Firefox is doing there is completely undefined and it would be
better if they would actually implement the standard for that.

And in the case of Firefox you really have no way to distinguish RTX from
normal transmissions. If the RFC is implemented, you can distinguish them based
on the PT and SSRC, like one of my patches in the other bugs did (which was not
the best solution for that problem, but maybe it is for another one).


(In reply to Miguel París Díaz from comment #54)
> (In reply to Sebastian Dröge (slomo) from comment #51)
> > Comment on attachment 300185 [details] [review] [review]
> > 0004-gstrtpjitterbuffer-not-calculate-jitter-for-packets-.patch
> > 
> > Wim said on IRC that we should handle all packets the same here
> 
> I don't agree, because of the case of handling RTX packets(the common
> problem that we are discussing in other patches).
> If this is not a good solution, we should look for another one.

How does this patch relate to any of the others? Wim's argument basically was
that there is nothing else we can do than to consider RTX packets also for the
jitter calculations. And it might also be just jitter in the end.
What exactly would your patch solve? What's the problem you're observing?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.