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

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Mon, 19 September 2011 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.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 E480C21F8C80 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.228, 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 SxezP2GeyicJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E87821F8C7B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so6986976iab.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LuqeMNFoaaabt+0Aou+XFYAkWbf0AXcCJB0/3lL05Kk=; b=uAJKUlV3rRs1Aq1cb+rThhnozhPoXwwlIL55wMj2F0YlUmCHcrWgNvtOR4QrLLssAP yo+/JJft6Wo9h0ZmuUpWCHBsornzj7rOeto8THQa8bCFHG82wfcAuH9gjUXepBimf3XD jKO0JYP3qdAFduADOx6m0bqgTsNtH2w2p0Ryc=
Received: by 10.231.21.26 with SMTP id h26mr4511860ibb.40.1316451861648; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] ([70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v16sm26500750ibe.0.2011.09.19.10.04.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E777685.7040002@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:06:13 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110818 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.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>
In-Reply-To: <8548CBBD-4E12-48F3-BC59-341FF45EF22F@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 17:02:00 -0000

On 09/19/2011 03:23 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?
> 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
>    


They should cache the JIT resultant bytecode.



-- 

---
<i>The wheel.</i metro-link=t dzonatasolyndra>