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

Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:09:32 -0500
Message-ID: <51E972CC.1020104@nostrum.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: IƱaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 7/19/13 11:54, Martin Thomson wrote:
> As it turns out, "does not need to be solved" doesn't go to 100%.
> Some problems are deferred to applications.  Intentionally.  Because
> a) they are better at that than we are, clearly, and b) they don't
> necessarily want our crappy solutions.
>
> How long have we talked about BUNDLE?  How long do you think that it
> would take someone with a functioning RTP library to build something
> that multiplexes and demultiplexes RTP streams?

Are you proposing that Firefox come up with its own multiplexing 
mechanism for RTP; Chrome its own; Opera, yet a third; IE, a fourth; and 
Safari, a fifth?  And then we just kind of pray that five proprietary 
solutions developed in a vacuum miraculously work together? I mean, 
yeah, if we can rely on miracle interop for independently-developed 
proprietary solutions, I guess that works.

Or are you envisioning a WebRTC API that requires javascript 
applications to supply their own RTP stacks?

/a
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 17:10:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:35 UTC