Good point, thanks :) On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
Currently there are lots of good tools to do SFU, I’m not sure what the upside is to us doing SFU as well that is not already covered by other tools. Its a similar discussion to people who want FS to be a proxy. If there is sufficient demand and funding to do the work, we would consider it. Lacking the funding to do this work I don’t see the drive to do it.
On Oct 3, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Mirko Brankovic <mirkobrankovic@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I'm wondering where do FS stands now and what is the plan for future?
I saw there were PlanB <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-uberti-rtcweb-plan-00> and Unified Plan <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00> but I guess none passed the point of proposal I guess.
Now I see some different "webrtc standards" as *rid* in sdp <https://webrtcstandards.info/simulcast-and-sending-multiple-video-resolutions-to-the-sfu/> .
Simulcast is the future I guess, like it or not i guess.
My general question is will FS go in SFU direction and why not ??? :D
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://confluence.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
-- Regards, Mirko ¯\_(ツ)_/¯