W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2015

Re: WebRTC Data Channel in Workers Proposal

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 07:34:52 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kpp_0eWYro8pcSOkpGOL_jcdk23J4PHPCKVKsxaWhUBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org>
Cc: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I think this is an awesome idea. The group that would discuss and
specify this is either the HTML WG or the WHATWG. I would suggest
starting a discussion about this on the WHATWG mailing list because it
addresses a bigger issue than just WebRTC.

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org> wrote:
> I would like to propose that we support WebRTC Data Channel in Workers
> (`WebWorker`, `ServiceWorker`, etc.)
>
> WebRTC DataChannel is basically a drop-in replacement for `WebSocket`,
> except it's peer-to-peer. For all the same reasons that `WebSocket` was
> added to the `Worker` spec, we should add WebRTC DataChannel.
>
> Here are some possible use cases:
>
> - DataChannel in a `ServiceWorker` would support the use case of "peer
> assisted delivery" a la [PeerCDN](https://www.peercdn.com/faq.html), CDN/P2P
> CDN video streaming delivery, file transfer, etc.
>
> - DataChannel in a `WebWorker` would support offloading CPU intensive data
> transfer and subsequent processing to another thread.
>
> - DataChannel in a `SharedWorker` would let one construct and reuse a DHT (a
> decentralized/distributed lookup service similar to a hash table) across
> tabs. Useful for routing to nodes in decentralized applications.
>
> Websockets are already available in Workers, so there likely aren't any new
> security/privacy issues, just potential for exciting new data channel use
> cases!
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 21:35:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:44 UTC