Re: The abysmal state of interoperability for the m-section of SDP

Hi Bernard,

This is just because our use of screen sharing is as a second stream - the
client side works just fine, thanks.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Tue., 27 Aug. 2019, 5:11 am Bernard Aboba, <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Silvia said:
>
> "To support older versions of browsers, we now have to maintain an ever
> growing matrix of combinations of browser versions so we can indicate
> to a user who is joining a call whether they will have
> interoperability issues with the other peer - specifically we have to
> tell them whether screensharing is available to them or not."
>
> [BA] Are you encountering any incompatibilities with respect to the Screen
> Capture <https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-screen-share/> specification?
> Or is this just a problem with Webrtc-PC?
>
> Also, are you using addTransceiver or addTrack/setParameters?
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2019 11:46 AM
> *To:* Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>; public-webrtc <
> public-webrtc@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: The abysmal state of interoperability for the m-section of
> SDP
>
> Thanks for the report!
>
> I assume that the individual issues have been filed in the respective
> browsers' bug trackers - it would also be great if you could have a look
> to see if there are web platform tests that test the behaviors that
> cause non-interoperability; both things help us check the browsers
> against the spec to see that they are in sync - and where they aren't,
> which one is doing it wrong. (It might be the spec!)
>
> Thanks for trying this out and reporting the results!
>
>
> Den 25.08.2019 07:28, skrev Silvia Pfeiffer:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is a bit of a rant, but I thought it would be important to share
> > how painful it is right now to work across browsers with WebRTC and
> > where I'd like to see some improvements.
> >
> > We are an avid user of multiple parallel media streams between peers
> > in a video call. We often send one or more screenshares at the same
> > time as the video call itself. This makes it possible to look at a
> > person while sharing the screen, something I've always found bizarre
> > in most traditional video conferencing applications. We can't have
> > that in a telehealth application where the clinician needs to always
> > be able to see a patient.
> >
> > In the past, we had no interoperability between Firefox and Chrome
> > because Chrome supported Plan B (which incidentally worked really
> > well) and Firefox did Unified Plan. We waited patiently for Chrome to
> > support Unified Plan and rejoiced when it came. But we were out of
> > luck. Moving to Unified Plan with Chrome didn't make sense for us,
> > because Firefox decided to make secondary streams not use the ID that
> > is passed in, but use something else altogether. So we held back,
> > because we still couldn't make it work interoperably. (Thanks Firefox
> > for not following the standard.)
> >
> > Now, Safari has decided to jump to Unified Plan - rejoice! Oh, but
> > wait! Instead of offering backwards compatibility, it removed Plan B.
> > What!? We now face the bizarre issue that our iOS app (developed
> > before Safari supported WebRTC) is now not able to interoperate with a
> > modern Safari. Awesome, thanks.
> >
> > Anyway, we soldier on. We have moved to Unified Plan and fortunately,
> > Safari and Chrome are interoperable. Yay! But Firefox continues to
> > plague us.
> >
> > To support older versions of browsers, we now have to maintain an ever
> > growing matrix of combinations of browser versions so we can indicate
> > to a user who is joining a call whether they will have
> > interoperability issues with the other peer - specifically we have to
> > tell them whether screensharing is available to them or not. It would
> > be really nice if the complexity of WebRTC interoperability would
> > reduce over time, not continuously increase.
> >
> > So much for news from the coalface... please get interoperable Unified
> > Plan sorted - we have waited for more than 5 years for this already!
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Silvia.
> > ---
> >
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coviu.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBernard.Aboba%40microsoft.com%7Cbf47106685b34e85931308d72a55f496%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637024420983982234&amp;sdata=yyRBlMCaQ8KNJEZ0bKDuZWAURGQ4w6p4njVwUndzitg%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
>
>
>