Re: A proposal for solving non-muxed RTCP *and* ICE freezing

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com> wrote:

>
> As far as I know, nobody does non-mux which supports ICE, DTLS and SRTP
> exchanges as per WebRTC standards.
>

Well, as I said a few hours ago (in a particularly unreadable way), we do
NOT mux and we still have ICE, DTLS/SRTP in a WebRTC compliant way.


> Having said that, I can't say my personal knowledge of what people do in
> the wild is exactly a comprehensive study.
>
> When it comes right down to it WebRTC 1.0 does it so to achieve parity in
> capabilities, we support as well but we try to minimize the pain of
> exposure. If WebRTC 1.0 drops that as a requirement, I suspect our group's
> reaction would be to drop it as well.
>
> I'm not sure there's a strong use case to need non-mux RTP/RTCP,
>

Probably not ... other than the fact that it's one less thing to implement
in order to reach support. Also, the case for muxing RTP/RTCP isn't
particularly strong either so ...


> except for "compatibility / parity" with WebRTC 1.0, or perhaps to allow
> RTCP meta data to flow through a proxy that knows the RTCP keying material
> whereas RTP keying material would be kept private. That latter use case was
> not a direct intended supported use case though in ORTC.
>

This a good point.

Emil


-- 
https://jitsi.org