- From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 16:47:45 -0800
- To: Michael Toomim <toomim@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:12 PM Michael Toomim <toomim@gmail.com> wrote: > > At IETF 118 I will present a proposal to adopt State Synchronization work into HTTPbis: > > Braid-HTTP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-toomim-httpbis-braid-http [1] Alas I won't be in Prague to discuss this. Given that there's lots of applications that might benefit from this that are implementing it separately, I think it could be useful. I'm pretty on board with enhancing PATCH: we already have it, making it better is good. I'm mildly positive about Version history: seems to slot in fairly well and is mild extension of mechanisms. Merge type header I'm not so sure about, but I can see that working nicely. The big sticking point for me is subscriptions. This is a deviation from the request/response paradigm that goes pretty deep into how clients and servers are coded and the libraries they use. It can of course be stuck on top of WebTransport, which might be the right way to do it, but then doesn't integrate with the other three parts. You might be better trying to layer this on top of HTTP and WebTransport, as ugly as that can be with regard to what intermediaries can do in order to get it into the hands of people faster, but if there's some strong reason not to do that I'm all ears. Sincerely, Watson Ladd -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2023 00:48:03 UTC