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

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.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 A00A521F8B28 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.429, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 3tH0OwBqUHKF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED26521F8B00 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 04:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p8JBr27Y011378; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:53:03 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:40:35 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.57) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:40:34 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.204]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:40:34 +0200
From: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
To: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
Thread-Index: AQHMdLFRhtDWvVL9C0SO/zqb4ZpL+ZVUHxUAgABCRgCAADPg0A==
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:40:33 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620B6767@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <8548CBBD-4E12-48F3-BC59-341FF45EF22F@acmepacket.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [88.114.26.217]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2011 11:40:35.0479 (UTC) FILETIME=[F21E9270:01CC76C0]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
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 11:50:43 -0000

Hi,

Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>With regard to the issue of overhead of pulling it down every time, I thought
>browsers cache JS scripts, no?

I suppose scripts are no different from other resources on the web, so they can be cached even locally at the browser. So in principle, there shouldn't be a need to pull down the same script from the same site over and over. But as far as I know, caching is based on URLs and not URNs. This means that even if two sites were using the same library, caching wouldn't notice that, if the URLs were different. I don't know if there is a solution to this (other than actually sharing the URL , which might not be practical). It would be interesting to learn. 

Markus


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of ext Hadriel Kaplan
>Sent: 19 September, 2011 13:23
>To: Randell Jesup
>Cc: <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About
>defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
>
>
>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?
>And on top of it you'll end up with a wild mixture of signaling vendors,
>because there'll be a mixture of Browser vendors and it's unlikely they'll all
>use the same source code inside.  What's worse, it won't be controllable by
>the JS developer.  At least with a JS library they're all using the same source
>code, and the JS developer knows what it was/did if it was an older version.
>
>With regard to the issue of overhead of pulling it down every time, I thought
>browsers cache JS scripts, no?
>
>-hadriel
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb