Re: [rtcweb] Media forking solution for SIP interoperability (without a media gateway)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I would suggest that, instead of talking about a single PeerConnection, we talk about using the same local IP parameters and candicates for multiple remote endpoints. It could be a single PC, or it could be multiple "cloned" PCs.

Again, let's first decide whether we need it - then we can start thinking of how to get it :)

Regards,

Christer


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
> Sent: 31. lokakuuta 2011 14:26
> To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Media forking solution for SIP 
> interoperability (without a media gateway)
> 
> 2011/10/31 Ravindran Parthasarathi <[e-mail]>:
> > Harald,
> >
> > As per F11 & F12 of 
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-06 ,
> >
> >   "F11             The browser MUST be able to transmit streams to
> >                   several peers concurrently.
> >
> >   F12             The browser MUST be able to receive streams from
> >                   multiple peers concurrently."
> >
> > The above browser requirement makes me to guess that it is 
> possible to support SIP parallel forking sort of services in 
> case proper JS APIs are provided (May be current form of 
> peerconnection does not). Please let me know your opinion on this.
> 
> The above requirements don't say that a *single* 
> PeerConnection MUST be able to send and receive streams 
> to/from several peers concurrently. It just says that the 
> *browser* MUST be able, and a way to achieve that is by 
> creating multiple concurrent PeerConnection objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>