Whether it's one shape or the other doesn't take affect the network protocol underneath.

If you have constructive ideas of how to simplify the protocol underneath or the API, you can share them with the authors. The people that work on that APIs are always looking for constructive feedback

So I'm pretty sure work like this can be done in the W3C.

I've also recently discussed this new local p2p API with the authors. And I'm in the favor of it, at least in principle.

The difference is that local p2p does not require signaling like, say the p2p done by ICE, WebRTC, or p2p QuicTransport. So for some uses cases, this would be better. And, if done right, this would fit well into a cohesive set of APIs that cover both kinds of p2p.

I'm also in favor of making APIs low level, but I'm not sure if raw sockets is going to work. Keeping congestion control working is pretty important.

I also think calling the WebTransport API complex is overblown. If you don't want the more advanced things, you can ignore them. If you want to use it like a WebSocket, just open one bidirectional stream and you're basically done. If you want to avoid head-of-line blocking, just open a stream for every message. It's a little more complex, but it's not the kind of thing you need a library for. Github Copilot will probably write the code for you. It's true there aren't as many server libraries out there yet, since WebTransport is still maturing. And we're waiting for Safari to add support.

Or am I missing something in the docs?

(I was one of the original authors in the W3C but left shortly after the BoF happened).

(I'm one of the original authors of the WebTransort spec and when I worked at Google years ago, some excellent engineers on my team shipped the original QuicTransport behind a field trial).

Live streaming was a motivating example for both of those, as you can tell from the video. And both of them grew out of our efforts to make WebRTC better for live streaming.

More info is available at my blog post about it: https://signal.org/blog/how-to-build-encrypted-group-calls/

1. I don't think there are many good open source SFUs to choose from. I know of 2, maybe 3 (including our new one). There may be many, but few have good rate control. But maybe I just don't know about them? I'd be happy to learn of more good ones.

2. Echo cancellation is certainly a hard problem, but it doesn't conflict with E2EE unless you do it on the server, which isn't necessary. So perhaps it may be a somewhat harder problem because you close off one possible approach (doing it server-side), but many (most?) echo cancellation solutions are done client-side.

3. You may not be completely dependent on WebRTC's echo cancellation any more because of the new MediaStreamTrackProcessor and MediaStreamTrackGenerator APIs. I don't know if it will work for echo cancellation, but it might.

About simulcast: why would a sender not support simulcast? Something to do with VP8 hardware encoders?

I'm still interested to hear what you have learned about AQM and the like.