<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Malcolm Davenport <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolmd@digium.com" target="_blank">malcolmd@digium.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The patch on that issue does a wholesale replacement of 30ms iLBC with 20ms. Such a change in a release branch, or even trunk, seems scary/bad/perilous - especially noting compatibility with previous versions . But, if no one uses 30ms iLBC, perhaps it doesn't matter, and perhaps a horde of people will be able to more effectively use iLBC.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What say you?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To me, this sounds like a hack -- forcing a codec to a particular (and non-default) packet duration. Why not figure out what's going wrong with the transcoding, instead of just band-aiding it?<br>
<br>--<br></div><div>Jared Smith <br></div></div><br></div></div>