[Doh] Web Convergence - is there a document/RFC for this apparent direction?

Todd Hubers <todd.hubers@gmail.com> Fri, 26 October 2018 00:58 UTC

Return-Path: <todd.hubers@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B233E130E08; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0i7PpXNEQ9RQ; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69E5B1286E7; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id w19-v6so10174492eds.1; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vYv3baw+iUilpFIbuJeqQUBx5NDF0saZHWF6IaUeDH4=; b=sWv7W8QEJespj3futdEcWNIOl7eRIUR3Z2UIXHNj7sUWAYbg4kxTAY0HIOyzDCmEv7 p7/nI5eTbgBqTg1tlWHRHhcZCUgZKD8FqrgPu2Eanw4QVd07mE9hcVcqNgMLe/PQSpWm lnDulI/EmX+O+gJur8SF5sVJc5+4rTZv8jhLZNeHr9RvhbhXuFAMlkL8+wJZagw5K7b4 e7c1IH92o3FhA9y0rmZFaDbW9THMDYHkSS2I+T/My3+FnrsXkH9GHJbGvJvP9Y62DUjQ VRm5DU3rC5yZI1mLh/cNwWs4b7ldv/luDWXXJoGrCa72BBsgje9KJyvsQ2yojb7SHwPl pM1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vYv3baw+iUilpFIbuJeqQUBx5NDF0saZHWF6IaUeDH4=; b=bVEvs7xHiRZaTIQCYf0XbVfySkaVQFSbUNlUDv8Mv2imnGOI7mlHaSgB5q13G0aMub hn6gaiSiNbX23E2j05cwsTSuPIpW9d1LiZgs4S2fMRhEXshtZ2gLs6N2D1Dkb6unyhof FN7GY5wqTjjCdFpezNVVgbP+aVPVjXEraNF+FwAWFvnTv/V9sF6CTXUV/mvZ/WvBzU+y 7xUa04jdeQgd/yyk5Ujx0iRiGkvq6lSSPnWCEIDLbe3pLlDCIj0RsAZhTaOr9/1b7PC1 wNF3iAiiHCFYC6uoTB25q/vpO/8yZfDt0gRlln4s5/v/mvQGr2REYXhxSSdYW+Ax1RpT K87A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJRunTd4BDIP9tthH9Aci1FeCFrK7hgwJWUYmtv7zb/nXO1c1ov C80iGn7Vx9rb4Fw/PRPpU2KlzH4OEMNZZ+3FQqIgT8Nk9as=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dCDhKTIwHs8KQVIzzF282ZyncYBmpGIpMzA1Bcdq1FcsZWp27jE1OQQeAluEHoly42wtINQmGgx2cngSe7skY=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c149:: with SMTP id r9-v6mr1019788edp.213.1540515488512; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Todd Hubers <todd.hubers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:57:56 +1100
Message-ID: <CABO3BC1aJqBLMWic2e4VsCfZqSev+cuO=SeqJJTSAih7jvUdgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: jmap@ietf.org, doh@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076bde2057917369c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/PyF1p3sJEBaSZxBSe87Z-LHJHhU>
Subject: [Doh] Web Convergence - is there a document/RFC for this apparent direction?
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 00:58:13 -0000

Hi All,

Is there a document/RFC about the IETFs collective general movement toward
re-standardisation of things like DNS (DOH), SMTP (JMAP), and maybe others
using Web/HTTP/JSON?

I read the introduction of DoH [RFC8484], and noted there was no reference
there, so such a document probably doesn't exist.

Instead, it could read something like "Web Convergence is desirable
[RFCXXXX]", and that RFC could be very comprehensive in the collective
decision about this direction. It would critically help in determining when
a current standard should be considered for Web Convergence.

I believe it would be something to be referenced in the charter of such a
WG, to clarify WHY the work is being completed, in addition to the other
good reasons. Even if we don't have an RFC, this idea does need a solid

I have initial ideas for the content of such a Web Convergence RFC
[Appendix 1], and what it might be ultimately called [Appendix 2]

(I am also new to IETF generally, so I'm still learning. But I like
learning by doing._


Todd Hubers


Appendix 1

For rebuilding of older standards the web way; OR, building new standards
the web way. The reasons should be the same.

Initial ideas for reasons to be collated in such a document/rfc:

- Accessible directly by web applications (javascript), removing the need
to push via a specialised application server adaptor service (eg. HTTP to
- The reuse of standard web sysops tools (eg. nginx, certificate
management, services like CloudFlare and more)
- The reuse of standard web frameworks and libraries (eg. header parsing,
asynchronous threads)
- Reducing the diffusion of open source development contribution
(redefining the same functions in different standards, and different source
code is inefficient).
- Additional features available from current and future web standards (eg.
redirect, media-type negotiation, compression, multiplexing, proxying,
caching, authentication, Header Parsing, URIs, well-named folders,
Identity, Semantics, etc..)
- More secure with exactly the same security model as web - (eg. no plain
text email transmission)
- All security/firewalls leveraging accumulated PORT 80/443 and HTTP


Appendix 2

Possible names for this process

- Web Recasting
- Web Convergence
- Http Convergence (specifically HTTP of Web Convergence)