|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sean-Der
1969 days ago
|
|
|
> a well-defined media transfer protocol will eventually emerge Until then interacting with a 'WebTransport Media API' involves me running code distributed by the person running the API. With WebRTC I can exchange a Offer/Answer and then have a bi-directional media session. I appreciate that these lower level APIs help companies that need the flexibility. I worry that the complexity will lock out Open Source and smaller companies. Smaller companies are going to have to figure out things took years to solve with WebRTC. Stuff like * Congestion Control/Error Correction trade-offs and Latency * Simulcast * Re-negotation * Rollbacks * Capability Negotation I was always a big fan of ORTC. Give flexibility to the power users, but give an even playing field to small players. > RTP over WebTransport datagrams I don't feel strongly about QUIC vs S(RTP). WebTransport doesn't force RTP, so it doesn't help unless I control everything. Bridging will get a lot harder. Right now it is nice that Reports/NACKs/etc.. can cross protocols. |
|
|
Until then just use webrtc for client/server video. P2p protocols work just fine in centralised contexts.