Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  On 05/07/2013 5:55 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>  On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> > The primary application is voice and video at least in my book
>>
>>  I've always find this the most annoying point of WebRTC. Why so much
>> focus on audio & video relegating DataChannels to a second place
>> (almost a year to start having a specification and some
>> implementations!). Would it be easier and simpler to implement the
>
>  audio & video support directly over the DataChannels, maybe requiring
>> them to be not reliable?
>
>
>  No, it would not be easier. More importantly, it wouldn't be compatible
> with existing devices, wihich is an important requirement.
>
>
>     Let be honest. There are no existing devices that are compatible with
> WebRTC, with or without SDP.
>

On what basis do you say that? What feature do you believe is not
compatible with
any existing devices?

At the very least, all these products needs to be modified to understand
> WebRTC-specific key/value pairs.
>

Even if this were true, there is a huge difference between requiring modest
SDP translation
and requiring gatewaying of every packet.

-Ekr