- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:33:47 -0800
- To: Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Cc: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Alexey Aylarov <alexey@zingaya.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Tim Panton new <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Iņaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote: > 2014/1/19 Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>: >>> I'm not talking about "one library to rule all" but rather a reference >>> implementation by one of the vendors (I used Google as an example because >>> their implementation is already up on webrtc.org). >> >> That (or the library from Firefox were we to extract it) wouldn't be >> a "reference implementation" but merely an "implementation" > > Something is wrong in WebRTC when most of the non-browser proyects > (opss, and even other browsers) take the Google code as "reference > library". If the only way to get real interoperability is by using the > same code here and there (instead on making implementations based on > the spec) that says bad things about the whole WebRTC. Having SDP in > the middle does not help here. Hmm.... I'm not sure what you mean here. The Firefox implementation uses VideoEngine and VoiceEngine but has a completely distinct implementation of SDP processing, networking (ICE, STUN, TURN, etc.) getUserMedia, and other pieces. The major common code is the media processing, which doesn't really seem like a commentary on WebRTC, since you would need that code more or less whatever design we used for WebRTC. It's more like a commentary on how difficult it is to do a decent media stack. With that in mind, it's surprising you would single out SDP here, since that piece is totally different between Chrome and Firefox. -Ekr
Received on Saturday, 18 January 2014 23:34:56 UTC