Re: PTTH (aka Reverse HTTP) BoF in Madrid

Excellent! Thank you! I've subscribed to the list.

Austin Wright and I have been discussing the topic 
<https://braid.org/meeting-116#reverse-http-update>, and look forward to 
helping out.

On 8/11/25 1:24 PM, David Schinazi wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> The PTTH BoF went well. There was interest from the community to work 
> on this problem, and enough folks indicated that they were interested 
> in writing or reviewing drafts in this space. If you're interested in 
> more details, the minutes are at [1] and the video at [2]. In terms of 
> next steps, a PTTH email list has been created [3]. We will be 
> coordinating there, and the proponents will start work on a potential 
> charter.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-123-ptth-202507241500/
> [2] https://youtu.be/TANMphVPgdo
> [3] 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ptth/2SovFebj0HDO0wSqXMzdwEcm0aw/
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 1:19 PM Michael Toomim <toomim@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     PTTH chairs: were there any outcomes or notes from the BoF?
>
>     I could not attend due to illness, but am keen on the topic, and
>     would like to hear what came out, and contribute if possible.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Michael
>
>     On 7/15/25 3:09 PM, David Schinazi wrote:
>>
>>     Hi HTTP enthusiasts,
>>
>>
>>     I'm happy to announce that we will be holding the PTTH (aka
>>     Reverse HTTP) BoF in Madrid. Our main goal there will be to
>>     establish whether we should pursue this work, and if so, where.
>>     Since one of the potential outcomes is to fold this work into
>>     HTTP, our AD has asked us to use the HTTP mailing list to discuss
>>     this topic until the BoF.
>>
>>
>>     More details on the topic of the BoF can be found at [1], but in
>>     a nutshell the idea would be to enable use cases where the HTTP
>>     server lives at the client end of the transport-layer connection.
>>
>>
>>     You're all invited to the BoF, but until then we'd like to have a
>>     mailing list discussion around such use cases. Are you aware of
>>     some? Do you think there is a gap in our protocol offerings to
>>     enable those use cases? If so, what requirements would you have
>>     on a potential new solution in this space?
>>
>>
>>     There are multiple drafts in this solution space, but for now
>>     we're intentionally seeking discussion on use cases and
>>     requirements. Our goal is to figure out the scope of this
>>     potential new work.
>>
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     David, PTTH BoF co-chair
>>
>>
>>     [1]
>>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bofreq-rosomakho-protocol-for-transposed-transactions-over-http/
>>