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: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:41:48 +0100
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d5430e80-ac70-6575-ea2a-71c24aa5ac00@gmail.com>
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..

Received on Friday, 26 January 2018 20:42:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 26 January 2018 20:42:20 UTC