RE: Call for Consensus: ICE Transport Extensions for WebRTC

Lennar said: 

"So, if I understand correctly this is the beginning of a series of
extension documents that can run on top of this ICE transport."

[BA] The ICE Transport Extension was developed to enable 
data transport scenarios where no A/V was negotiated (if an RTCPeerConnection had already been
constructed, then a QuicTransport or DtlsTransport/SctpTransport could be constructed from the
existing IceTransport). 

"Is this intended to be part of 1.0 or as part of NV?"

[BA] The ICE Transport Extension is compatible with WebRTC 1.0, which does not
have an IceGatherer object (or a SliceTransport, for that matter). 

Whether NV should combine the IceTransport/IceGatherer as in this
extension, keep them separate as in ORTC or go for a different model (such as SliceTransport)
merits a separate discussion in my opinion, since the answer may depend on the NV use
cases that need to be supported. 

"It could be a bit more low-level (thinking of the `SliceTransport` Peter
mentioned a while ago) but that can be solved later (possibly a
compatible interface that both implement)."

[BA] The ORTC design utilizes distinct IceGatherer and IceTransport objects
in order to support parallel forking and peer-to-peer use cases. However, at TPAC
other use cases and potential ICE protocol changes were discussed.  

"I'm not sure it's a good idea to nreinvent the wheel with a third API that allows the usage of ICE
(especially since we then have three RTCIceTransport interfaces, all
slightly different).... Adopting ORTC and extending on that seems more reasonable to me."

[BA] I would agree that there is no need to reinvent the wheel if the NV use cases end up being
similar to the ORTC use cases (e.g. same as WebRTC 1.0 plus parallel forking and support for
scalable video coding). 

However, there have been some NV use cases discussed (such as access to raw media and
support for ICE enhancements) that could require modifications to the ORTC design.

"I think it would be a lost opportunity to not be able to run audio/video
on top of this. But I guess we don't need to discuss that now."

[BA] If the intent is to construct an IceTransport and use it alongside a PeerConnection, we'd
probably need an understanding of how that would affect the SDP.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2018 20:56:17 UTC