Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC endpoint non-browser

I would like emacs support.

I am not actually joking...

I typically work in emacs with an erc window open and it would be nice
to see who I am working with inside of emacs, rather than a browser.
Have no idea how to do this....

/me goes to look at resiprocate....

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo
<sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
> The question, is who cares?
>
> My  application will do whatever is needed for my service, implement one,
> two, three or none video codecs according to my business requirements. I
> don't really care (so won't my users) if you call it webrtc endpoint,
> webrtc-compatible endpoint or webrtc-non-compatible endpoint.
>
> So, from my point of view, we are just discussing about definitions of
> entities so we all speak same languages, any attempt to push a MTI codec is
> wishful thinking at best.
>
> Talking about reality, from my experience, most of the apps will be google's
> libwebrtc based, so they will implement whatever is provided in there. VP8
> for sure, and h264 if supported by mobile and used by libwebrtc.
>
> On a side note, with current state of specs, a Microsoft based ORTC
> implementation on IE will be a webrtc endpoint.
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
> On 08/12/2014 19:00, Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote:
>
> Do you have any concrete examples?
>
> Does this mobile app, needs to interact with another mobile app? Again, I am
> looking for concrete example.
>
> I bet that every single webrtc service will be a webrtc compatible endpoint.
>
> I would like to have a confirmation that this is not the case and that those
> apps that you are mentioning will interact with other apps and implement
> both codecs.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gaëlle
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sergio Garcia Murillo [mailto:sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 12:10 PM
> To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] WebRTC endpoint non-browser
>
>
>
> They may be webrtc endpoints, or compatible-endpoints depending if they
> implement full webrtc-rtc stuff our just a minimum subset.
>
> Being specific, any mobile application not using a browser will be a webrtc
> endpoint. So I bet every single webrtc service will implement their own app,
> hence their own webrtc endpoint.
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
>
> El 08/12/2014 17:24, "Gaelle Martin-Cocher" <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
> escribió:
>
> You are listing webrtc-compatible endpoints, not webrtc “non browser”
> endpoints.
>
> I am not asking of generic types of services but who actually belong to the
> non browser endpoint category.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Gaëlle
>
>
>
>
>
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Garcia
> Murillo
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11:10 AM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC endpoint non-browser
>
>
>
> Native or custom applications, audio gateways, mcus, transcoders, SBCs...
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
>
>
> On 08/12/2014 17:03, Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Is it possible to know who is going to develop services that belongs to the
> WebRTC  endpoint non-browser category?
>
> I think it would really help if we can identify that.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Gaëlle
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

-- 
Dave Täht

thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks