Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 0380B21F8B8B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XYAGqMx7SpsH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f170.google.com (mail-wy0-f170.google.com [74.125.82.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1F921F8B9B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg8 with SMTP id 8so6459862wyg.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.154.66 with SMTP id n2mr2876611wbw.3.1316442265221; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.55.82 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E77495E.4000409@jesup.org>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <16880306-5B3A-4EFD-ADE4-1201138D9182@acmepacket.com> <8584590C8D7DD141AA96D01920FC6C698C896B71@gbplmail03.genband.com> <CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E76E078.5020708@jesup.org> <8548CBBD-4E12-48F3-BC59-341FF45EF22F@acmepacket.com> <4E77495E.4000409@jesup.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:24:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPkJug4cepU2gmGufLrcc26iX+JMwj-D0afEyvV1EnnUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
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: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:22:04 -0000

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>; wrote:
> On 9/19/2011 6:23 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
>>
>>> The point was made repeatedly when I explained this primary area of
>>> contention that we want it to be easy to use by the "little guys", and that
>>> even if signalling was a downloaded JS library, you'd end up with a wild
>>> mixture of old versions in use, which may complicate interop/federation
>>> (plus the overhead to pull them down, and some possible security issues).
>>
>> And you think having it in the Browsers won't end up with a wild mixture
>> of old versions in use, and complicated interop/federation?
>
> Not compared to the complexity if it's all "roll-your-own".  No one
> suggested that
> people be locked into a signalling protocol, and JS libraries are an option.
>  We do
> have a lot of experience with pseudo-standard APIs implemented in JS, such
> as jquery
> and many others, and these aren't unrealistic concerns.

Randell,

Does auto-updating change the landscape in terms of the browser
version distribution?

Mozilla have measurements on what fraction of the modern (i.e. post FF4)
browser base is running the latest version of Firefox?

Thanks,
-Ekr