W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)

From: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:36:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG-EYCiVExcyHLoXB1ixQCKduxUPTVOnVX1XrmFJ3b72Y8AAFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
So can we form a new WG then and focus on doing this right vs making
WebSocket2.  The focus earlier was to get the already coded clients and API
(websocket API) to be able to work with websockets layered on HTTP2/QUIC,
if we are in it for the long haul now we might as well form a new group and
create something more long term?

Long haul meaning maybe making websockets its own protocol, detaching from
HTTP2, having its own ALPN, etc.



On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> > On 25 Nov. 2016, at 7:25 pm, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks all.
> >
> > IESG and IETF don't have unlimited resource. Conclusion of HyBi did make
> sense.
> >
> > As noted by Barry in his mail about WG conclusion and as Mark said, we
> can form a supervision again once there's enough interest.
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/vreF1jd3I-vsyWN1TiRnFSCEoVI
> >
> > > What *is* in-scope here is how (if at all) that protocol interacts
> with HTTP, including HTTP/2; there are several ways you could implement
> WebSockets over HTTP/2, and a few pitfalls in doing so that the people on
> this list will be able to give you feedback on.
> >
> > One of the keys of the WiSH proposal is to focus on API level
> compatibility with WebSocket. But except for that point, it's a general
> proposal of application of HTTP semantics and HTTP/2's power for
> full-duplex messaging in the Web. The proposal (one done by Yutaka in 2014
> and Van's one also) heavily depends on what the HTTP WG produces (specs,
> documents and possibly any kind of official/unofficial communications). So,
> I think there shouldn't be no doubt on need for close work with HTTP WG.
> >
> > That said, I agree we need to have the right structure of the community
> to have the "best" work mode based on various metrics (level of interest
> for each proposal, their complexity, scope, etc.), and the IESG and the
> co-chairs are trying to do the best in making the right decision, I think.
> >
> > > However, it's hard to do that before there's agreement in the WS
> community about what the requirements are. Ideally, that community would
> bring a single proposal that has broad support here for review.
> >
> > Mark, does this post of yours imply that you're seeing HyBi ML as one
> effective representative of WS community at this point with HTTP WG chair
> hat on?
>
> I'm seeing it as the obvious place to hold the discussion; it doesn't have
> any official status (beyond being the place where hybi happened before),
> but it's typical practice to keep IETF mailing lists open after a WG
> concludes, so that the interested parts of the community have a forum.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
Received on Sunday, 27 November 2016 14:36:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 27 November 2016 14:37:04 UTC