This is cross posted from EnThinnai Blog. Please post your comment at the original location. Thanks.
In a recent post Chris Kranky on the need “to move on” and the need for expediency in wrapping up the first iteration of the API. Personally I would have benefited if the first iteration had been a low level spec. For I could have easily ported a custom Java applet. But given the passage of time, it is more important that there is an agreed standard. But this point is not the objective of this post. Instead I would like to focus on another of his points:
[WebRTC] wasn’t designed to be federated (namely that 2 WebRTC applications aren’t in fact supposed to talk to each other.
He makes this observation to explain the motivation for seeking low level control. My quibble is not with this explanation, but I want to take this sentence in isolation, interpret it literally and discuss it. (It is not fair to Chris, but I am just using his sentence as a prop. So it should be OK with him.)
In my interpretation, if WebRTC is not designed to be federated, then there is some deficiency and need to be addressed. If not immediately, but at some future time. But with WebRTC construct there is no need for federation. Let me explain.
Following are four main reasons why we need federation and how WebRTC handles them without requiring federation:
In my opinion the fact that WebRTC does away with federation is one of the important benefits and why it is going to disrupt communications industry.
Posted by aswath at July 25, 2013 03:26 PM