Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because of worrying about possible misusage?

[Andreas Oberritter <obi@linuxtv.org>]

On 06.12.2011 12:21, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 09:41:38PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> On 05.12.2011 18:39, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> 
>>> When you put someone via the network, issues like latency,  package
>>> drops, IP
>>> congestion, QoS issues, cryptography, tunneling, etc should be taken
>>> into account
>>> by the application, in order to properly address the network issues.
> 
>> Are you serious? Lower networking layers should be transparent to the
>> upper layers. You don't implement VPN or say TCP in all of your
>> applications, do you? These are just some more made-up arguments which
>> don't have anything to do with the use cases I explained earlier.
> 
> For real time applications it does make a big difference - decisions
> taken at the application level can greatly impact end application
> performance.  For example with VoIP on a LAN you can get great audio
> quality by using very little compression at the expense of high
> bandwidth and you can probably use a very small jitter buffer.  Try
> doing that over a longer distance or more congested network which drops
> packets and it becomes useful to use a more commpressed encoding for
> your data which may have better features for handling packet loss, or to
> increase your jitter buffer to cope with the less reliable transmit
> times.

Can you please explain how this relates to the topic we're discussing?