Does WebRTC need a change in governance?
Is it time to change the governance of WebRTC in order to keep it growing and flourishing?
Read MoreWebRTC isn't much different than its predecessors. Except for its approach.
When it comes to VoIP, you can say that the relevant solutions consist of 4 different parts:
The end result? Long specifications with too many ways of interpretation. It becomes everything and nothing at the same time.
Ever tried running an interoperability test between 2 video endpoints of 2 different vendors? Got any video? Great! Have you tried the same vendors when adding to the requirements list security? Or NAT traversal? Or a newer/older codec? Maybe screen sharing?
It fails miserably. There are just too many permutations to test, each with its own interpretation by each of the vendors.
And then came WebRTC.
What it did best was to keep things simple. NAT is mandated and engrained within the specification from day one. There's no option for security – or rather EVERYTHING is secured – there's no other option.
What can I say? WebRTC chose the Tango over other dances…
Is it time to change the governance of WebRTC in order to keep it growing and flourishing?
Read MoreRTC@Scale is Facebook’s virtual WebRTC event, covering current and future topics. Here’s the summary for RTC@Scale 2024 so you can pick and choose the relevant ones for you.
Read More