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

Eric Rescorla <> Tue, 04 October 2011 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963BE21F8CF8 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8CANOiWzXefq for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920E521F8CF7 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eye4 with SMTP id 4so679524eye.31 for <>; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h8mr764427ebd.21.1317742394263; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:32:34 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Randell Jesup <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd1380250cab404ae7acf9c"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
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, 04 Oct 2011 15:30:10 -0000

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Randell Jesup <>wrote:
> 3) Inaki's (sorry about the cedilla) point about "website-based libraries
> can be updated more often than ones baked into a browser" is valid, but it
> has a flip-side - the swarm of smaller users of webrtc are likely to
> download a version of jSIP.js (or whatever) and are not likely to actively
> track updates.  My understanding is that this is rife in the use of things
> like jquery - upgrading is time-consuming and risks breakage, and requires
> QA.  People grab one version and never change it - while Firefox for example
> updates every 6 weeks.  (He may have a better argument with IE users,
> especially in business, but my point still holds.)

This is my understanding as well, and it's something that is encouraged by
the way that these
libraries are distributed, namely that the obvious behavior if you go to the
JQuery site is to
just download one of the canned versions, which of course is specific. Even
if you use one
of the CDN versions (see:,
the links are all to specific versions. So, the consequence is that people
en up nailed to
one version.

This doesn't necessarily mean that client libraries will upgrade more slowly
than the browsers,
but as far as I know it's not a decided question either way.