[valera_rozuvan]

For anyone curious, there is a great article [1].

WebRTC enables peer to peer communication.

BUT...

WebRTC still needs servers:

For clients to exchange metadata to coordinate communication: this is called signaling. To cope with network address translators (NATs) and firewalls.

-------------

[1] https://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/infrastructur...

[k__]

You need a signaling channel to your peer. This doesn't have to be a server, but it makes things simpler.

[ChristianBundy]

My preference is IPoAC.

[RcrdBrt]

I think that adds up some latency

[sktrdie]

But you can use publicly available servers to do that no? STUN servers and such. So you don't need to roll our your own.

[SahAssar]

No, signaling is different from STUN. Signaling is basically pairing together the people who want to communicate so that they can get the info required to connect to each other, STUN is how they find out their public IP:port pairs and TURN is how they can talk over a proxy if direct communication fails.

So you always need some form of signaling but that can be over email or even a handwritten note if you prefer, although it is usually done over HTTP/websockets.

STUN is required if you are behind some sort of NAT.

TURN is required if your NAT does not play well with hole-punching.

[sktrdie]

Ah indeed. But can't the handshaking be done without rolling our your own signaling server?

Here's a great example: https://jameshfisher.github.io/serverless-webrtc/index.html

Checkout the process in the console! For instance you can do the handshake the same way you'd send someone the URL of the actual thing.

[SahAssar]

As you see if you run that it is a request-response like flow. So sure you can send the initial offer in the URL, but then you somehow need to get the answer back to the initiator.

So while you can have a initatior URL sent to the responder and then the responder send back a URL to the initiator that is still not "click link and you are connected".

Handling signaling is pretty much the easiest bit of webrtc as it is basically just a HTTP/websocket echo server with some ID or similar for the meeting.

If you have a websocket server (or REST & SSE as I i usually do) you can just have meet.example/{meetingId} and echo everything on meetingId to all others on the same meetingId. That is as simple as the web chat examples that thousands of beginner programmers create their first year.

You should also consider that the signaling info (called the SDP) does not have a set lifetime and can in some cases be valid indefinitely and in some cases just valid for less that a minute, so if you encode the SDP in the URL you:

1. Can't setup a meeting URL beforehand which is how most people want them to work.

2. Need a back-and-forth over some other medium like email/chat/pigeon.

[sktrdie]

But it's a very similar flow as you'd normally do with a URL no?

- You'd send someone a link such as http://chat.com/#id - Other person opens http://chat.com/#id redirects to another url, and this other url (http://chat.com/#someOtherId) is sent back to creator - Creator clicks on link again

So it's just adding an extra step where the owner needs to also click on a new URL. But I agree since signalling server is rather dumb this can probably also be outsourced by a "public signalling server"?

[SahAssar]

Yeah, that is possible but my point is that it sorta breaks how people are used to join these kinds of meetings. The back and forth required is not the expectation most people have.

If you have more people then you'd need to do this once per person, (after that they can gossip the SDP over data channels to find the other participants).

Usual flow:

1. I and other people go to meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff

Your proposed flow:

1. I go to meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff (and it generates my sdp in the background and appends it to URL)

2. I send meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff#MySDPHere to my friend

3. He goes to meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff#MySDPHere (and it generates an answer SDP and replaces it to URL)

4. He sends me back meet.example/DiscussImportantStuff#FriendsSDPHere

5. I go to that link and we are connected.

Repeat steps 2-5 for each participant.

Considering how little technical complexity is saved and that you still need to have some sort of communication channel set up I don't think the proposed flow is worth it.