- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:35:40 +0000
- To: Mark Finkle <mfinkle@mozilla.com>
- CC: Dong-Young Lee <dongyoung.lee@lge.com>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>
Hi Mark, All, On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:37, Mark Finkle <mfinkle@mozilla.com> wrote: > Doesn't PeerConnection create a relatively high bar for devices to support? What other implementation features need to be supported for PeerConnection? Encryption? I also feel RTCPeerConnection may add some unneeded complexity. The use cases we’ve discussed so far seem to be better addressed by building atop the abstractions provided by the MessagePort. > What about WebSockets? or even simple XHR? Many of the currently shipping devices already have a protocol, but the do vary quite a bit. > > I worry that by imposing the connection protocol, we basically remove every currently shipping hardware device from being compatible. Do we care about that? Agreed. Looking at the use cases and requirements, nothing seems to require exposing the connection protocol per se. All - if you have use cases in mind that would require exposing a specific protocol, please let us know. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2014 09:36:10 UTC