W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

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

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:42:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOWWry4iH-4DuK4Z_ez0R=L=zBo2HFx4USe98evAhuxPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "public-webrtc_w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>, Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On 6 Jul 2013 08:07, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> We're only talking about gatewaying SDP and not the media transport itself.
>

The message I was responding to said "Would it be easier and simpler to
implement the
audio & video support directly over the DataChannels, maybe requiring them
to be not reliable?"

Data channels do not send data over a protocol which is wire compatible
with RTP,
therefore you would either need to either:

(a) Redefine data channels so they were wire compatible with RTP.
(b) Gateway all the media from data channels (SCTP) to RTP.


-Ekr
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 22:43:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:34 UTC