W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2018

Re: What would you like to see in WebRTC next? A low-level API?

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:11:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsyW8bu7V2P-H8ACwz_ntjRKwHQtP+c1QseLmYBdOw+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Peter,

I would also like to consider a low level RTP API to pair with custom
encoders or RTP extensions.

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
wrote:

> For a long time, there has been interest in extending WebRTC to allow for
> more low-level control (at times called "WebRTC NV", similar to ORTC).
> Recently, at TPAC 2017, since WebRTC 1.0 went to CR, we began to seriously
> discuss what to do next, and there was a lot of interest in low-level ICE
> controls and in QUIC-based data channels.  Since then, we started
> extensions specs for QUIC and ICE, and there has been discussion around
> SCTP data channels API and WHATWG streams.
>
> With so many options available for what to do next, it's probably a good
> time to step back, look at the big picture and ask:  What do we want to
> accomplish with WebRTC next, and how are we going to get there?
>
> *Please write back to this thread and let the WG know what you'd like to
> see in WebRTC next and why*.  In particular, if you expressed interested
> at TPAC for QUIC or low-level ICE, please let us know why you are
> interested.
>
> To answer my own question, here's where I think we should head and how we
> can get there:
>
> *I propose we build a true Low-Level WebRTC API.  *
>
> As an app developer, I want the lowest-level API I can get.  I can build
> the app up from low-level primitives, or rely on libraries to do so.  This
> will allow me to improve my app without waiting for standardization,
> browser implementations, browser bug fixes, and browser performance
> improvements.  I will be able to control my own destiny to a greater extent
> and make me dependent on a smaller surface area.   As a browser
> implementer, this also means less that developers are relying on me to
> standardize, implement, and maintain.
>
> Ideally, we could provide the same APIs that mobile apps get: raw network
> access and low-level access to hardware encoders/decoders.  The web can't
> go quite that low.  But we can get close.
>
> *We can get a great low-level API by a few incremental improvements*
>
> We start with a existing combination of APIs that approximates a good
> low-level API: getUserMedia + WebAudio/canvas + data channels.  It's
> clunky, but it's there.   For example, one can already capture audio using
> getUserMedia+WebAudio, encode it using ASM.js (or WebASM?) and send it over
> the network using the data channel from PeerConnection, and then do
> similarly on the receive side.  We can improve on the situation by:
>
> 1.  Adding low-level p2p transports (ICE or SLICE)
> 2.  Adding low-level media/data transports (DTLS/SCTP or QUIC)
> 3.  Adding low-level encoder/decoders (like Android's MediaCodec API)
>
> It's all incremental, it's better each step of the way, and after doing
> each of them, we have a great low-level API.  For example, one could
> capture and encode video using getUserMedia and hardware encoders, then
> send it over the network using SCTP or QUIC directly, and then do similarly
> on the receive side.  One could also tightly control which network path(s)
> media is sent over at any given time.
>
> That's what I would like to see us pursue.  But again, please write back
> to this thread and let the WG know what you'd like to see.
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2018 23:11:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 23 January 2018 23:11:52 UTC