What is roadmap

Hello guys. You made a great product with no doubts, most of your decisions are unique for small webRTC community. ljm is the only help needed part of full project ifrastructure for this moment.
Want to understand the next steps.
Will the videobridge suport H264 in future ? Will lib-jitsi-meet be rewriting with no SDP-interop ?
Will be able for jicofo to opearate between participants using something except MUC ?
Will unified plan simulcast available? Where are you need contribution from community?
Thanks

Welcome and thanks.

It is supported in general, but there are some issue around it which needs attention, but I think @gpolitis can give more details here.

Again I will ask help from @gpolitis, if we move to unified plan will we drop the SDP-interop?

Nope, currently jicofo is using xmpp for all comunications, it needs a complete rewrite to get rid of it or to abstract it and make a pluggable protocol of communication.

It will be coming, I hope later this year … but no ETA for the moment.

Thanks a lot

Simple h264 is already supported; h264 with simulcast is not. If somebody from the community would like to work on that I’m happy to help but it’s on our roadmap afaik.

I think that’s where we’re heading, but it’s not fully decided yet and there’s a long discussion pending around how to proceed with unified plan.

1 Like

I think we can convert jingle offer directly to corresponding description plan. But if it pretty hard to implement, there can be another way. We can get planB once at first offer from jicofo, obtain unified once. Take this into semantic version (like sdp transform) and make our source-add/remove modifications with unified plan directly.
Another hard to implement thing is convert unified to jingle. Jicofo is waiting for audio, video, data mids only. Thisnk we can easily convert our m-lines to jingle content in such manner with no requirement to interop SDP, but we can update jicofo to support custom mids structure aswell.
Unified plan browsers are more widely distributed, so we should think about planB as about fallback, but not vice versa