Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface

On 19/07/2013 11:17 PM, Robin Raymond wrote:
> Is WebRTC exclusively targeting browser interoperability ? I'm not 
> trying to nitpick, but this is a vital point of issue.
>
> If yes, then why do we need to carry so much legacy SDP stuff to 
> achieve basic sending of media between browsers?

     That is a very good point!

     On the one hand, the WG refuses to consider the needs of 
non-browser peers (mobile devices, headless servers). On the other hand, 
the WG is bending over backwards to accommodate non-WebRTC legacy 
systems. Shouldn't we give equal consideration to the two cases? I'm 
sure that mobile devices and headless servers require their own special 
considerations.

     For example:

  * Mobile devices and headless servers should be considered first-class
    citizens alongside the browser. We need a C/C++ reference
    implementation on all these platforms to ensure that WebRTC is
    available everywhere and reduce the amount of inter-op problems.
  * Special consideration for the limited resources of these devices,
    their poor connectivity and the lack of hardware-accelerated codecs.
    Yes, this will improve over time, but it might take over 10 years
    for mobile devices to match the resources available on
    desktop/laptop computers.

Gili