Re: Server-oriented stack (Was: Summary (updated)...)

Justin,

I don't catch either the "Missing server-oriented version of WebRTC" entry on your mail. There are many different WebRTC server-side solutions. For example, at kurento.org we have a (FOSS) GStreamer based implementations of all the capabilities you mention:

- DTLS (new GStreamer element based on GNU TLS)
- ICE (nice sink&source gst element)
- Recording (basing on pre-existing GStreamer elements compatible MP4 and WebM)
- Live transformation of WebRTC flows to HTTP pseudostreaming flows (MP4 and WebM)
- Dispatcher for group communications
- Mixer for group communications
- Etc.

By "Missing server version" you mean a port of the PeerConnection?

Best.

Luis.




El 29/01/2014, a las 15:35, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> escribió:

> Hey all,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Missing server-oriented version of WebRTC
>> Multiparty, recording, broadcast
> 
> I was wondering if we had a plan as to how exactly we were going to
> take on these two (if at all). The reason I am asking is because I
> think we might already have most of the components in place within the
> Jitsi community (FOSS):
> 
> * media stack and srtp support with libjitsi (with DTLS from bouncycastle)
> * ICE support with ice4j.org
> * a video router (SFU) with Jitsi Videobridge
> 
> The one part that's currently missing is recording ... but we
> shouldn't be long...
> 
> None of the above components rely on any part of the existing
> webrtc.org stack, which should also address the interoperability
> concerns that otherwise arise with the dominance of  single RI.
> 
> (FWIW, I do agree that working on formally specifying any part of the
> server-side APIs here would be rather out of scope)
> 
> Emil
> 
> --
> https://jitsi.org
>