WebRTC Ships in MacOS and iOS 11
Update:
Looks like VP8 is not there after all, bummer. More political jostling afoot, which sucks for the development community.
—
This is a big deal, to have Apple / Safari onboard is really the final major obstacle in the adoption of this awesome standard.
More info (thanks Marc Abrams !!)…
Based on the beta for macOS High Sierra – that was made available yesterday…
– https://cl.ly/3q0p1O3…
– Test samples: webrtc.github.io/samples/ (It passed most of the tests)
– Video codec support is VP8 and H.264 (I have not seen a test that shows H.265 or HEVC but I know it’s there)
– Audio codec support is Opus, ISAC16, G.722 and PCMU
– Basic datachannel support is there but none of the tests seem to work
AWESOME!!! This took a bit longer that many of us were expecting, but hey better late than never!
PulverHWC – How We Communicate

Next week I will be joining friends old and new at PulverHWC to rediscover – How We Communicate.
Here is an email from Jeff Pulver inviting all of you to join us in Los Gatos for what is sure to be a landmark occasion.
Hope to see you there!
Erik
The Keys to the Communications Universe
Next week I return to doing the one thing that I love best – bringing together brilliant, interesting people.
Leaders, visionaries, dreamers and market makers from the worldwide communications industry have accepted my invitation to take part in the Pulver HWC Summit, May 18 – 19 at Testarossa Winery in Los Gatos, CA. I am grateful for both the people who are speaking and the tech legends who have signed up to join us for an intimate conversation. I believe understanding the message behind “How We Communicate” (“HWC”) is the next great area of growth in the communications space. Trillions of dollars of opportunity will be created and there are relationships to be forged, deals to be made, and knowledge to be shared.
There are a limited number of tickets still for sale. To join the conversation and to register, please click here. I would appreciate it if you could share this email with your friends and family involved in the communications industry.
Thank you!
Warm hugs, Jeff
W3C ORTC CG – Editors Draft Update – May 4
http://ortc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ortc.html#change-log*
B.1 Changes since 01 March 2016
- Added the
gather()
method, as noted in: Issue 165 - Removed “public” from
, as noted in: Issue 224RTCIceGatherPolicy
- Removed the minQuality attribute, as noted in: Issue 351
- Made
send()
andreceive()
asynchronous, as noted in: Issue 399, Issue 463, Issue 468 and Issue 469 - Provided additional information on ICE candidate errors, as noted in: Issue 402
- Added state attribute to
, as noted in: Issue 403RTCSctpTransport
- Provided an example of RTX/RED/FEC configuration, as noted in: Issue 404
- Clarified
payloadType
uniqueness, as noted in: Issue 405 - Updated the list of header extensions, as noted in: Issue 409
- Added “goog-remb” to the list of feedback mechanisms, as noted in: Issue 410
- Added kind argument to the
constructor, as noted in: Issue 411RTCRtpReceiver
- Clarified
send()
restrictions on kind, as noted in: Issue 414 - Added
getAlgorithm()
method, as noted in: Issue 427 - Changed
protocol and label to USVString, as noted in: Issue 429RTCDataChannel
- Clarified nullable attributes and methods returning empty lists, as noted in: Issue 433
- Clarified support for the “direction” parameter, as noted in: Issue 442
- Clarified the apt capability of the “red” codec, as noted in: Issue 444
- Clarified usage of
attributes, as noted in: Issue 445RTCRtpEncodingParameters
- Clarified firing of
onssrcconflict
event, as noted in: Issue 448 - Clarified that CNAME is only set on an
, as noted in: Issue 450RTCRtpSender
- Updated references, as noted in: Issue 457
- Described behavior of
send()
andreceive()
with unset
, as noted in: Issue 461RTCRtpEncodingParameters
- Corrected dictionary initialization in the examples, noted in: Issue 464 and Issue 465
- Corrected use of enums in the examples, noted in: Issue 466
- Clarified handling of identity constraints, as noted in: Issue 467 and Issue 468
- Clarified use of
RTCRtpEncodingParameters
, as noted in: Issue 470 - Changed hostCandidate type, as noted in: Issue 474
- Renamed state change event handlers to onstatechange, as noted in: Issue 475
- Updated description of
closed state, as noted in: Issue 476RTCIceGatherer
- Updated description of
object, as noted in: Issue 477RTCIceTransport
- Updated description of relatedPort, as noted in: Issue 484
- Updated description of
, as noted in: Issue 485RTCIceParameters
- Clarified exceptions in
construction, as noted in: Issue 492RTCDataChannel
- Provided a reference to
error.message
, as noted in: Issue 495 - Clarified
description, as noted in: Issue 496RTCRtpReceiver
- Clarified default for clockRate attribute, as noted in: Issue 500
- Removed use of “null if unset”, as noted in: Issue 503
- Updated
constructor, as noted in: Issue 504RTCSctpTransport
- Clarified behavior of
getCapabilities()
, as noted in: Issue 509 - Addressed issues with
, as noted in: Issue 519RTCDataChannelParameters
W3C ORTC CG Meeting 10 underway
ORTC, WebRTC, H.264, VP8, RID, RtpEncoding, Simulcast and much more. Google, Microsoft and Hookflash leading the discussion, join us!
http://ortc.org/2015/11/04/w3c-ortc-cg-meeting-10-november-20-2015/
WebRTC Developer Contract in Seattle – 5 months
We have an immediate WebRTC development contract opportunity that has just come up in the Seattle area. The contract requires 4-5 full-time developers onsite, remote will not fit the bill on this one.
For this contract we are looking for a team lead, 2 x Node.js, 2 x common JS developers
You have built commercial web applications using WebRTC libraries and are intimately familiar with the WebRTC and ORTC specs and respective libraries.
Start date: ASAP
If you are interested please forward your resume elagerway@gmail.com
Microsoft Edge ships ORTC API preview
From Microsoft – http://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/09/18/ortc-api-is-now-available-in-microsoft-edge/
Our initial ORTC implementation includes the following components:
- ORTC API Support. Our primary focus right now is audio/video communications. We have implemented the following objects: IceGatherer, IceTransport, DtlsTransport, RtpSender, RtpReceiver, as well as the RTCStatsinterfaces that are not shown directly in the diagram.
- RTP/RTCP multiplexing is supported and is required for use with DtlsTransport. A/V multiplexing is also supported.
- STUN/TURN/ICE support. We support STUN (RFC 5389), TURN (RFC 5766) as well as ICE (RFC 5245). Within ICE, regular nomination is supported, with aggressive nomination partially supported (as a receiver). DTLS-SRTP (RFC 5764) is supported, based on DTLS 1.0 (RFC 4347).
- Codec support. For audio codecs, we support G.711, G.722, Opus and SILK. We also support Comfort Noise (CN) and DTMF according to the RTCWEB audio requirements. For video we currently support the H.264UC codec used by Skype services, supporting advanced features such as simulcast, scalable video coding and forward error correction. We’re working toward to enabling interoperable video with H.264.
More here..
Bernard Aboba joins W3C WebRTC WG as Editor
W3C WebRTC working group chairs [Harald Alvestrand (Google), Stefan Håkansson (Ericsson), Erik Lagerway (Hookflash)], made a decision recently to add a new editor to the working group, as Peter St. Andre (&yet) has resigned as editor.
Bernard Aboba (Microsoft) has now been appointed as editor.
Bernard’s attention to detail and advocacy for transparency, fairness and community has been refreshing. It has been my pleasure (as chair of the W3C ORTC CG) to work with Bernard whom also is an author in the W3C ORTC CG alongside Justin Uberti and Robin Raymond (editor). I look forward to working more with him in the WG.
Congrats Bernard!
/Erik
New WebRTC WG Charter
The new charter for the WebRTC Working Group has been approved. Current members will need to re-join, from the WebRTC WG mail list…
Hi all,
Great news, the new W3C WebRTC Working Group charter [1] has been officially approved by the W3C Director [2].
The revised charter adds a deliverable for the next version of WebRTC, has an updated list of deliverables based on the work started under the previous charter, clarifies its decision policy, and extends the group
until March 2018.The charter of this Working Group includes a new deliverable that require W3C Patent Policy licensing commitments from all Participants.
Consequently, all Participants must join or re-join the group, which involves agreeing to participate under the terms of the revised charter and the W3C Patent Policy. Current Participants may continue to attend meetings (teleconferences and face-to-face meetings) for 45 days after this announcement, even if they have not yet re-joined the group. After 45 days (ie. September 10, 2015), ongoing participation (including meeting attendance and voting) is only permitted for those who have re-joined the group.
Use this form to (re)join:
https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/47318/joinInstructions to join the group are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/47318/instructionsThanks,
Vivien on behalf of the WebRTC WG Chairs and Staff contacts[1] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/webrtc-charter.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2015JulSep/0024.html
My First @W3C #WebRTC Editor’s Call
As newly appointed co-chair in the W3C WebRTC WG, I just participated in my first Editor’s Call, and I’m impressed.
We had to address nearly dozens of Pull Requests and Issues on the associated github repos. We managed to knock down quite a few that ended up getting merged and a few that were closed today, despite not having 1 co-chair and 1 editor present.
There were some suggestions on how we could make the processes a bit more effective, allowing everyone to understand more what’s expected of them. It’s going to take a few meetings I suspect to get a real feel for how I can be adding the most value possible.
Overall, it feels like we are all trying our best to do what the new charter has set out, to get 1.0 done before getting on with the next chapter. I am excited to be part of it and look forward to continue helping!
If you have any thoughts on how the WebRTC Working Group could be doing things differently to be more effective and efficient, I would like to hear your thoughts.