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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Randell Jesup <[e-mail]> 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