- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@skype.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:06:07 +0000
- To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
- CC: Luis López Fernández <luis.lopez@urjc.es>, "Anniruddh Koppal (Persistent Systems Ltd.)" <v-ankopp@microsoft.com>, "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
> From: piranna@gmail.com [mailto:piranna@gmail.com] > But on step 9, why is not possible to send the data from A to B? A has the B > connection data, with the IP and port. Is not included in the connection data the > ICE credentials? I though it was... Does it has any problem the scheme that I > proposed that prevent me for sugesting to add this data/feature? [MT] At one level, A CAN send to B. However, the browser will insist on sending DTLS handshakes only. Your application can't send anything until the DTLS handshake completes. > > CU-RTC-Web would allow what you are describing, but only by adding custom > STUN parameters to connectivity checks. That feature wasn't considered > important enough to retain. > > > Oh, sh*t... :-( By who? What was the reason? Could that use case being re- > considered? [MT] The WebRTC WG didn't like CU-RTC-Web, primarily because it was "too hard" to use or some crap about SDP being awesome. The ORTC guys didn't want anything that low-level either.
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 16:07:30 UTC