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: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:29:53 +0000
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 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>
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB2708FEE0880AB9BDB1B4778B878C0@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
QUIC's charter doesn't have anything directly to do with WebSockets.  But I agree that since WebSockets came from a different WG, it might be a reasonable question to the ADs whether that working group should be rechartered to do an HTTP/2 or HTTP/QUIC port.

HTTP/2 makes many of the pre-WebSocket solutions to this problem space much cheaper.  QUIC will probably make it even more so.  If there are people who feel strongly that WebSockets still meet a need over a modern HTTP, I'm happy to read and occasionally comment, but I don't feel called to be integral to that work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Poul-Henning Kamp [mailto:phk@phk.freebsd.dk] 
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 1:19 PM
To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; 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>
Subject: Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)

--------
In message <CAG-EYCiVExcyHLoXB1ixQCKduxUPTVOnVX1XrmFJ3b72Y8AAFg@mail.gmail.com>
, Van Catha writes:

>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?

Apologies for asking a stupid question, but isn't that exactly what QUIC is all about in the first place ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 19:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 November 2016 19:30:31 UTC