Re: [dispatch] X over websockets

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Thu, 13 February 2014 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDD21A0279 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UcgqrqBzMDDh for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yh0-x234.google.com (mail-yh0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1786E1A0334 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yh0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a41so10734533yho.39 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XWST50SJWJZN9foABWoCo/ofYavnJX5kFrV2D/3E9Zk=; b=XWYgxYZCUfMX3zmnCtPxLrJmCzrvycQOXGaHgtSMxyeDvWOMSvnop4cdV1BHyK076t MbaHfrYpHfjBPtpQRyosUy8EIDAguX+DueGa7ZQV5fX5VIIi5dez9R9I7qCn/D6CISp1 5Jw2DAmRiPF+s/A+mbTnkHTgkfKemT9YaUG3vQLLd0PQSVe+3yc3KcxtzB+cWoUeC4h7 8k+NuaBIxp4+mqZimpN4EU5Sm1J3kyeeVsWtSt+msKKlYQ7EBKad8juXk9LPnb/gHHFj Su3WPrwpx03jIPfp6xe516NK2i5O0FBsIVd8BpbGuDvJv8I0qtKDvfjsURkmBnXlOLjK 7qBw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.79.196 with SMTP id i44mr3494166yhe.80.1392328973706; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.150.2 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52FD2AE0.7060600@gmail.com>
References: <20131213005747.777.34301.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHBDyN4tSRO_nYy7_-V4xfmDbF0ZeLJ24_fEOQ1p9Z2BvJyinQ@mail.gmail.com> <97B47463-42D2-4BA9-AC2F-DF8C67702DDC@cisco.com> <52FCE70C.1030608@gmail.com> <CAHBDyN7hySvbiJYnvRXDQ2ZS_FYFDMaODXBDRarE6DhRwC=fHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ag07bPBHzODTWGKFrKE00nO_wiMgRv2GEwUpGCiH25-Xf2Cw@mail.gmail.com> <52FD112B.5040209@alum.mit.edu> <52FD2AE0.7060600@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:02:53 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN7nUrUDRCHT5HXfqroPD=5WPSE+yUvFhy4BLTdYTYm-Cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30050db8e3754504f250d9eb
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/K-Wan0cD1OT2ibVQTKFjyOJ42GA
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] X over websockets
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:02:57 -0000

This topic has previously been raised (a year ago and periodically since
then):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg04693.html

The suggestion was to have a "foo" over websocket discussion on the RAI
list (which is really a lonely and largely ignored mailing list) but no one
has taken that up:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg04749.html

Also, no one has put forth a concrete proposal to deal with it and we don't
do work unless someones willing to put in the cycles.

Thus, these work items have been trickling in (and out).  Since they are
deemed useful in some contexts (and not harmful), they've been moving
forward.  But, it certainly would be good for someone to put in some cycles
to define a model and some guidelines for using websockets for any number
of RAI protocols.

Mary.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> El 13/02/2014 19:38, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
>
>  On 2/13/14 11:07 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
>>
>>> What I mean is that I expect quite a lot of "over websocekts" drafts and
>>> we should try to use the same solution for advertising it in the SDP,
>>> and not have each one have their own way of handling it.
>>>
>>
>> Sigh. Yes, once we had the first of these, it was only a matter of time
>> before the flood began.
>>
>> What concerns me is that for every "X over websockets" there is probably
>> also a good argument for "X over WebRTC Data Channel".
>>
>> Are we going to let that happen?
>>
>> Or for each X are we going to have a beauty contest between websockets
>> and data channel?
>>
>> Or what?
>>
>
> Completely agree, we should try to "close" that discussion once and for
> all and not have the same arguments and discussions in each draft. I am not
> really aware of the IETF process, but could be possible to create a draft
> to address it?
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>