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

Re: Call for adoption - WEBRTC-QUIC

From: westhawk <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:58:34 +0100
Message-Id: <18B3EA73-2866-4699-8DA4-84C7937744D9@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
To: "Zhu, Jianjun" <jianjun.zhu@intel.com>

> On 29 Nov 2018, at 13:23, Zhu, Jianjun <jianjun.zhu@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2018/11/29, 12:25 PM, "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> That leaves me puzzled as to why this is the best WG to develop an API for it.  As a data transport for HTTP/3, it seems like this would be of broader interest within the W3C.
> Transferring data between peers is in WebRTC WG’s scope. I’m curious about was there any debate on adopting data channel.
As I recall, there was some debate. Our experience at that point was that adding data in a side channel was a good way to augment a call and that DTMF didn’t do it, nor would server routed websockets.
The data channel discussion was framed around area I think.

Standalone data channel (with no associated call) came later and was a surprising success (at least to me).


> Best Regards,
> Jianjun

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2018 12:58:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:45 UTC