|WikiProject Computing / Software / FOSS||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Telecommunications||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
"It is licensed under the 3-clause BSD license" - what is licensed? The standard does not need a license. A particular implementation might be licensed but it is not clear which implementation this sentence might be referring to.
- It looks like the page was edited by people who were confusing the specification with the "webrtc" package. I toned that down a bit, I hope. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
'Opera: WebRTC implement the laboratory version of Opera in January 2012. The stable version now fully supports the standard.'
Answering my own question :). Correct -- and since v15, Opera doesn't support getUserMedia. However, Opera is now based on Chromium, and is expected to provide full WebRTC support in future. Sam Dutton (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Scope of WebRTC?
Does anyone know the scope of the WebRTC project? What features does the project do, and what features are out of its scope? Things that i'm wondering about in particular:
- what kind of communication will be supported? Text chat between two users, multi-user chat, voice telephony, video telephony, smell-o-vision?
- what about software for a central server which handles lots of users? User management, rosters/address book, billing?
- what about infrastructure? Will the project set up a server which is used by all users? Or is this up to the users? Or is the whole thing just between two users anyway, with no central server (kind of like a walkie-talkie)?
- chat client features (away message, finding other users, user blocking, chat logs, video filters)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It's very strange that the current spec lists feature requirements for a video codec but not what codec must be supported. All current implementations seem to support VP8 (correct?), but I guess the MPEGLA has blocked its standardization. How can WebRTC be an interoperable standard without mandatory support for a specific video codec? If two clients don't support a common codec what happens? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
WebRTC in action
Local IP vulnerability known long before citation given
The article currently says:
- In January 2015, TorrentFreak reported that browsers supporting WebRTC suffer from a serious security flaw that compromises the security of VPN-tunnels, by allowing the true IP address of the user to be read.
This implies that the vulnerability wasn't known, or not widely so, before that. But there's a bug filed against Firefox a year earlier, which discusses the fact that it was already well-known at the time:
- I've see this discussed publicly on twitter and elsewhere, and there are public demos so I don't think we need to keep this hidden. (e.g. http://net.ipcalf.com/)
The article currently suggests that WebRTC is already standardised, but I found no evidence to that end. In fact, the W3C still explicitly labels it a working draft and webrtc.org says that the APIs are still in development and subject to change. This should be incorporated into the article.–Totie (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've made a minor change to the introduction to reflect that this is still a work in progress. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Ublock apparently has a new spnosor (Wikipedia)
" (however the uBlock Origin add-on can fix this problem)." When did Wikipedia become a sponsor and advertising medium for Ublock? How can I advertise my software here on Wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:FD41:7D00:A5D8:D104:C30C:9376 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)