Sebastian Moeller via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
    > [SM] I fully agree, that is what I meant with unintended
    > collisions... and as long as we are in the regime with little talking
    > over each other I expect little differences between the modalities.

Back in 2002, the FreeS/WAN project moved from STU-III phones (I had two of
them with a two-line conference phone, so we could have three locations
connected) to H323 over IPsec [dog fooding].  Of course, each meeting started with 15-30
minutes to debugging: when IPsec didn't rekey right, we'd often wind up with
unidirectional communications. (It was a very good way to debug dog food issues)

A point that ||ugh made at the time was that he didn't think that we it was
actually useful to be in radio mode: that all of the subsequent digital
systems were designed to emulate the properties of the radio, which was that
the *general* as allowed to shout lounder than everyone else until they all
shut up and listened.

The question was our conferencing systems couldn't just accept audio from
each participant, put it in a queue, and play it out.  Some participants
might hear comments in different orders.  I don't know if anyone has tried
this.
It seems that such a system would be useful for in a Earth/Luna conference
where speed of light delays are 1-2s.  Beyond that, one gets into sending
video-grams as one sees in Expanse.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [