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!
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
RTCIceGatherPolicy - 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
RTCSctpTransport - Provided an example of RTX/RED/FEC configuration, as noted in: Issue 404
- Clarified
payloadTypeuniqueness, 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
RTCRtpReceiver - Clarified
send()restrictions on kind, as noted in: Issue 414 - Added
getAlgorithm()method, as noted in: Issue 427 - Changed
RTCDataChannel - 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
RTCRtpEncodingParameters - Clarified firing of
onssrcconflictevent, as noted in: Issue 448 - Clarified that CNAME is only set on an
RTCRtpSender - Updated references, as noted in: Issue 457
- Described behavior of
send()andreceive()with unsetRTCRtpEncodingParameters - 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
RTCIceGatherer - Updated description of
RTCIceTransport - Updated description of relatedPort, as noted in: Issue 484
- Updated description of
RTCIceParameters - Clarified exceptions in
RTCDataChannel - Provided a reference to
error.message, as noted in: Issue 495 - Clarified
RTCRtpReceiver - Clarified default for clockRate attribute, as noted in: Issue 500
- Removed use of “null if unset”, as noted in: Issue 503
- Updated
RTCSctpTransport - Clarified behavior of
getCapabilities(), as noted in: Issue 509 - Addressed issues with
RTCDataChannelParameters
First Virtual W3C WebRTC Meeting
Last Thursday we had the first virtual w3c webrtc wg interim meeting. Once we sorted out a few technical details it went quite well!
Meeting Home Page:
https://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/January_14_2016#Virtual_Interim
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/
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.
W3C ORTC CG – Editors Draft Update
Big thanks to everyone (especially Bernard) for putting in the extra work required here for our next CG meeting:
Draft Community Group Report 22 June 2015
B.1 Changes since 7 May 2015
- Addressed Philipp Hancke’s review comments, as noted in: Issue 198
- Added the “failed” state to
RTCIceTransportState - Added text relating to handling of incoming media packets prior to remote fingerprint verification, as noted in: Issue 200
- Added a complete attribute to the
RTCIceCandidateComplete - Updated the description of
RTCIceGatherer.close()and the “closed” state, as noted in: Issue 208 - Updated Statistics API error handling to reflect proposed changes to the WebRTC 1.0 API, as noted in: Issue 214
- Updated Section 10 (RTCDtmfSender) to reflect changes in the WebRTC 1.0 API, as noted in: Issue 215
- Clarified state transitions due to consent failure, as noted in: Issue 216
- Added a reference to [FEC], as noted in: Issue 217
WebRTC.is 