Me myself, seems I would only need to know the public IP and port that the
STUN server says I has and the labels of the DataChannels I'm creating, no
more... and the fact is that in Chrome >= v26 now it's being generated a
really big SDP string of more than 1.8KBs (bigger than the data chunks I
plan to transmit) just for this, totally crazy...
El 05/07/2013 18:41, "Martin Steinmann" <martin@ezuce.com> escribió:
> >From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 12:25 PM
> >To: Parthasarathi R
> >Cc: cowwoc; Christer Holmberg; Iñaki Baz Castillo; Robin Raymond; Roman
> Shpount; Adam Bergkvist; Ted Hardie; piranna_gmail.com; public->
> webrtc_w3.org; Eric Rescorla
> >Subject: Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser
> Implementers
> >
> >On 3 July 2013 12:03, Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> wrote:
> >> 1) Multiple signaling protocol has to be supported like Jingle, SIP
> >
> >This is false. A non-SDP API makes it significantly easier to support
> non-SDP protocols.
> >
> >If you were to make the case that ONLY Jingle and SIP were intended to be
> supported, then that it would be true that an SDP API would make it easier
> to >support those protocols. However, it's clearly not the case that only
> Jingle and SIP are being used (the complete opposite in fact).
>
> If you abstract from proprietary solutions, can you make a list of what
> else is used other than SIP and XMPP? We are talking about a standard
> here, aren't we?
> --martin
>
>
> >
> >> 2) Develop WebRTC application with few lines of code.
> >>
> >> a. This is not possible with API based approach
> >
> >This is also demonstrably false.
> >
>
>