7 ms·
While WebTransport is promising, it's limited to client-server communication unlike WebRTC. WebRTC supports peer-to-peer UDP connections as well. Thus it's bet
by mattvr 10mo ago
While WebTransport is promising, it's limited to client-server communication unlike WebRTC.
WebRTC supports peer-to-peer UDP connections as well. Thus it's better for use cases like low-latency games, video calling, and secure direct communication between devices.
A better push might be to make WebRTC more simple and modern, but I'm not sure if any standards committees are working on this yet.
- Sean-Der 10mo agoWhat do you think a more simple/modern WebRTC looks like? * RTP over QUIC is promising https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-over... Do you want a new PeerConnection API? Are you annoyed with the Offer/Answer model? Do you have beef with the protocols. The possibility are endless :)
- mattvr 10mo agoIn a nutshell, ideally `peer.connect(remoteId)`. An API like peer-js/simple-peer. And symmetric negotiation would be great as well. WebRTC should be the universal networking primitive for the next phase of the web, but the API exposes too many implementation details – its abstractions leak. This plus the overall weight of integrations limit mass adoption by developers.
- ranger_danger 10mo ago> peer-to-peer UDP connections Doesn't it require DTLS over UDP though?
- kixelated 10mo agoYeah, technically it's SCTP over DTLS for data channels. Only the media layer gets to use raw UDP, limiting the scope.