Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 18 October 2011 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5290921F8C90 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CQyIydK+0J1A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDFD21F8C8E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so792261vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.73.166 with SMTP id m6mr3859756vdv.18.1318962894979; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511599F3@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <393F1888-F834-4DAE-B6B1-1C5D35EE3292@phonefromhere.com> <CAOg=WDcC9t2KhQUg0gDJ60gO_2mNyMv9HKt=otCdPDfj4TnoTg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CABRok6n33QK0Si1Y0kT7+U0zgAWsJ4d5GENK_KL-JPx5a4erYg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511598EE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <665A16AB-AAD8-42B3-AC17-7E629EA2DE35@phonefromhere.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5115992E@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfmrncjsLVSiWk0tEgzwB00YaBGiqj0SDf9JTm9p1ZNoVA@mail.gmail.com> <0950F0E1-6E4B-407F-9563-654AFE79F64B@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159994@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804004302@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E703DBF614@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF3E091D13@ucolhp4d.easf.csd.disa.mil> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511599F3@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:34:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnyfrBHATQ3WThT7F_fpXePN8PFYW_MJMwK-6QUjzkknA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:34:56 -0000

2011/10/18 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
> Also, the attempt for "standard" signaling protocol is not an attempt to stop custom-build signaling protocol and Sec 4 of draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00 draft explains this as
>
> "The defining signaling protocol is not a hindrance for any innovative
>   RTCWeb signaling protocol development as it is complementary
>   solution."
>
> but standard signaling protocol facilities for the quick development of the generic RTCWeb usecase without the need of developing of new signaling protocol per website. In case you still feel that my draft does not reflect this notion, Please let me know.


When RTCweb becomes a reality there will appear thousands of
JavaScript libraries implementing different RTCweb signaling
protocols, each one with its own features and capabilities. Do you
understand that a website admin will be able to choose the one he
prefers?

Visit 100 random cool websites. Probably 50% of them use JQuery JS
library. Does it mean that each web developer had to build his own JS
library? not at all, they use JQuery.

Now your reply will be "downloading the JS library everytime is not
efficient". Ok, visit 100 random cool websites. Probably 50% of them
use JQuery JS library. How many times have you downloaded the JQuery
library (assuming that every site has its own copy of the .js)? ... 50
times. Is that a problem? not for the rest of the humans in the world.

So please stop making up issues that don't exist. The WWW world does
not work as you propose, and anyhow it has succeeded.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;