On 26/01/2018 19:16, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>
>> On Jan 24, 2018, at 4:17 AM, T H Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk
>> <mailto:thp@westhawk.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 I think we have been focusing so much on interoperability with
>>> inexistent endpoints (ice and dtls but not bundle, for example),
>>> covering edge cases and trying to map legacy technology to webrtc
>>> that we have make the simple cases extremely difficult to understand
>>> and use for the normal use cases.
>>>
>>
>> Definitely.
>
> Many of the existing webrtc apps rated by minutes used or revenue do
> have to interoperate with legacy SIP so I think some of this was time
> well spent for the success fo WebRTC but … big BUT … We have that in
> WebRTC 1.0 - great - done. I do not see any need for WebRTC 2.0
> extensions to have any interoperability with SIP or 5G.
>
>
I am not saying that interoperability with legacy system is useless. My
point is that we have required DTLS + SRTP + ICE (and OPUS if you want
to have decent quality), so almost no legacy system could integrate
directly with webrtc. We could have also required rtcp-mux and and
bundle from the beginning as well for example..
Regards
Sergio