- From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:15:59 -0500
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <ee4cd739-1a16-ac37-3f1e-fa402409e0c8@jesup.org>
On 11/29/2018 7:58 AM, westhawk wrote: > > >> On 29 Nov 2018, at 13:23, Zhu, Jianjun <jianjun.zhu@intel.com >> <mailto: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. And p2p was a big win (latency wise) over websockets. (See below for more). side-channels via server/signaling in SIP had many issues.... ;-) > 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). As one of the people who pushed for DataChannel at the start, and who proposed SCTP and multiple channels (instead of a single over-RTP channel as IIRC was initially proposed), standalone was always clearly a goal - the use case I used to justify it was things like games, which might or might not have associated media (and that might change over time). I also was certain that providing a general tool instead of a specialized one would lead to many unanticipated usecases and applications, and one we considered early was use datachannels as a proxy for webtraffic (as uproxy ended up doing), and for implementing distributed call setup (thinking about the then-extant Arab Spring and blocking of single-source comm channels). You can go look at some of the arguments from the IETF in taiwan, and the list (rtcweb) discussions, and the summary of the Stockholm W3/IETF interim when we hammered out the ducktyping to WebSockets and the 0-RTT open. -- Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com Please please please don't email randell-ietf@jesup.org! Way too much spam
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2018 19:16:23 UTC