Re: Towards a new charter for the WebRTC Working Group

On 10 January 2018 at 07:03, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:

> - Ease of deployment.   No offense to usrsctplib, but I hear a lot of
> complaints about having to use it to make a non-browser WebRTC endpoint.
> It's one of the biggest complaints we hear about WebRTC data channels: the
> pain of terminating SCTP (and DTLS).  That's a big reason why people want
> QUIC. There will soon be many implementations to choose from (if there
> aren't already) and you only have to terminate one protocol, not two (DTLS
> and SCTP; ignoring ICE).

Absolutely.

QUESTION: How many DataChannel libs / stacks are out there after 6
years of WebRTC?

And no, usrsctplib is not the way to go. If, after 6 years, a
technology has not produced community driven implementations with
support for multiple languages, then something is just WRONG. How is
it possible that, after 6 YEARS, we don't have ANY tinny library in
ANY language to just run a simple script that connects via ICE + DTLS
and establishes a DataChannel connection? Instead of that, we have
"monster" projects (such as the wrongly called node-webrtc) that
embeds the whole Google's libwebrtc (even if just the DataChannel
feature is required).


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 21:44:43 UTC