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

"Asveren, Tolga" <> Tue, 18 October 2011 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B3F21F8505 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.336
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TghqMFwIheN7 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E559821F8512 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9IKVPhG018155; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:31:25 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC8DD4.D3AEF782"
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:30:49 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyN0FNRa8PK4bssTZKb604uAWGvqgAAmDyQ
References: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><0950F0E1-6E4B-407F-9563- 654AFE79 F64B@ag-proj><><><><><><> <>
From: "Asveren, Tolga" <>
To: Ted Hardie <>, Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:31:01 -0000

Some opinions about the topics under discussion:


i- One difference between JS library and browser support is that service developer can choose the JS library they want to use (or develop their own). It is up to them to make sure that it works fine, does not have malicious behavior etc... If they don't do their homework, their service will fail. OTOH, service developer has no control over what is/will be supported in the browser, e.g. browser-X supporting forking only after release-Y. I also would expect that security requirement is more on the browser so that it does not let potentially malicious things to be done and this would be controlled by the enduser by its choice of browser.


ii- How big do we expect JS libraries to be? I think we assume that battery/bandwidth is not a showstopper for realtime communication so I would think JS library size would be a factor only if its ratio v.s. media is non-negligible.






From: [] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3:59 PM
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol


On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <> wrote:

	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

You make this sound like you believe this to be an advantage.  Having seen the bit-rot in quite a few libraries,  I'm less included to assume that every library created will be feature complete and well-maintained.  I'm equally leery of presuming that it is easy to chose among them.  Checking for embedded malware, to take a simple example, makes the task longer and more fraught with issues than you might suppose.

	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.

It's certainly less efficient and, given the majority of users now accessing the Internet via mobile devices which are power and bandwidth constrained, that sort of wastefulness should not be trivially dismissed.  I

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


You set up a strawman that you attempted to knock down.  He did not propose it, you did.  I also don't think you scored even a TKO on the strawman.  Again, please focus on your own points, 


Ted Hardie

	Iñaki Baz Castillo

	rtcweb mailing list