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

[Andreas Oberritter <obi@linuxtv.org>]

On 07.12.2011 14:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:48:27PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> On 06.12.2011 15:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> Your assertatation that applications should ignore the underlying
>>> transport (which seems to be a big part of what you're saying) isn't
>>> entirely in line with reality.
> 
>> Did you notice that we're talking about a very particular application?
> 
> *sigh*
> 
>> VoIP really is totally off-topic. The B in DVB stands for broadcast.
>> There's only one direction in which MPEG payload is to be sent (using
>> RTP for example). You can't just re-encode the data on the fly without
>> loss of information.
> 
> This is pretty much exactly the case for VoIP some of the time (though
> obviously bidirectional use cases are rather common there's things like
> conferencing).  I would really expect similar considerations to apply
> for video content as they certainly do in videoconferencing VoIP
> applications - if the application knows about the network it can tailor
> what it's doing to that network.  
> 
> For example, if it is using a network with a guaranteed bandwidth it can
> assume that bandwidth.  If it knows something about the structure of the
> network it may be able to arrange to work around choke points.
> Depending on the situation even something lossy may be the answer - if
> it's the difference between working at all and not working then the cost
> may be worth it.

Once and for all: We have *not* discussed a generic video streaming
application. It's only, I repeat, only about accessing a remote DVB API
tuner *as if it was local*. No data received from a satellite, cable or
terrestrial DVB network shall be modified by this application!

Virtually *every* user of it will use it in a LAN.

It can't be so hard to understand.