On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 2:51 PM Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > > Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel (12025-01-17): > > I am the author of the only known functional OSS implementation of FEC. > > Seen from here, your rejection of this proposal looks a teeny tiny > little bit like trying to make sure you stay the only one and have no > competition in providing consulting about it.
Quite the opposite, as you see I haven't touched the Upipe FEC code in over ten years. I want the author and other people in the project to understand error recovery protocols are non trivial and require a ton of heuristics and testing. If a simple RTP source restart hasn't been fixed, what chance does a complex error recovery protocol have when the author and other project members feel it can be done "elegantly" without heuristics? This like someone wanting to write a fast codec in Python or Javascript. It would be shot down by this community and it's important to understand this applies in other fields. Error recovery protocols are complicated - this project lacks experience in them and a half-baked one will cause a lot of issues, security and stability being some of them. Furthermore, the issues are hard to reproduce as they may happen once a day or even once a week on certain networks. I have no issue with it being marked experimental. But the idea of incremental improvement is false. Error recovery implementations require careful design from the outset with numerous heuristics needed. Regards, Kieran Kunhya _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
