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

Re: Expose capabilities / Allow for IP:Post based connections / Better abstraction

From: <piranna@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:56:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfGGh0ijh+HiO=zaeyYpm+aF_FNMcFMXYVwDQbPm5F-QKOauA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Cc: Johannes Hange <moooitic@mailbox.tu-berlin.de>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
>>>> What about creating by default an internal DataChannel to support this
>>>> things transparently to the user? Or it would be better to be done on
>>>> an upper API as I'm currently doing? Cound candidates being send all
>>>> in one message instead of several ones?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with sending candidates over an internal DataChannel is that
>>> you
>>> can't set up the channel (assuming it's p2p) until you have exchanged
>>> candidates since the peers can't reach each other yet. It becomes a
>>> chicken
>>> and the egg thing.
>>>
>> Also including them on the offer/answer messages?
>
>
> Nothing prevents that. It all comes down to what available transports you
> have at the moment. If you have done the initial connection setup, you can
> send sequent offer/answer messages and candidates on a DataChannel. But
> until then, you need some other transport to talk to your peer.
>
I know I can be able to use a DataChannel to send offer/answer and
candidate messages, in fact I'm doing it :-) I was asking about
sending the candidates on the initial offer SDP so a DataChannel could
be used on the first shoot. Seems some time ago it was talked about
support this on the spec, isn't it?


>> Yes, and in fact I'm using them (PubNub channels, annonimous XMPP
>> servers and also my own protocol SimpleSignaling, and I have on the
>> radar to be able to use SIP-over-WebSockets), but the fact of parasite
>> this services and none of them giving a definitive solution nor found
>> a better one yet still give me some hackerish/homebrew/amateur/not
>> profesional/not serious sensation... :-/
>>
>
> I see. I think what you're trying to achieve is beyond the scope of WebRTC.

Probably, some time ago they told me what I'm trying to achieve is the
Holy Grail of Internet :-P


> To connect clients p2p without initially locating each other using a server
> is a big deal. Enough that it probably should be done in a new working
> group.
>
Interesting... I'm not too much a networks nor P2P guy and don't know
how this would be achieved on first place except plublish
someway/somewhere what's your PeerConnection endpoint or having an
open one on your browser ready to accept petitions. Where should I
start looking for create this working group?


--
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
 Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 07:56:56 UTC

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