Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)

Alexey Melnikov <> Thu, 01 December 2016 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627881294E3 for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 05:02:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2gxZvkv3XhXo for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 05:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01B771296C3 for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 05:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCQwi-0002iX-3c for; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:58:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:58:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCQwW-0002eM-Jo for; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:58:28 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCQwP-0004CR-4W for; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:58:23 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1480597073;; s=june2016;; bh=lbQxVsRxnJUIHY/sjJ+4N+VhJbn/8ktAHGZDbLbduAQ=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=tHtF2knb/FLdlyCP7c2KamlUaIZa6AJU4KTA/U+69tXfHyN6lUEbI7H2hBULEIKctDjvv2 TvXKtpnuVN47HDFjadFEzAudfuUTtKOCsKuvRX0gcapfke/4eoe1nPSPkTG6QkoJGc3AyP iVGUJHt0pf2DBLdqnD0WIyHfJtE5uh8=;
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:57:53 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (14A456)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 13:13:40 +0000
Cc: Mark Nottingham <>, Takeshi Yoshino <>, Willy Tarreau <>, Andy Green <>, " Group" <>, Wenbo Zhu <>, Martin Thomson <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Van Catha <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-0EBA05C4-4381-4E63-9B26-9FA9DD6E4413"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.779, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1cCQwP-0004CR-4W 101781b9c42a04830c64d40ee6fb3506
Subject: Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33064
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>


> On 27 Nov 2016, at 14:36, Van Catha <> wrote:
> 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?
> Long haul meaning maybe making websockets its own protocol, detaching from HTTP2, having its own ALPN, etc.

Interested parties should email and start the chartering discussion. Your friendly area directors will help you with the process.
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
>> > On 25 Nov. 2016, at 7:25 pm, Takeshi Yoshino <> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks all.
>> >
>> > IESG and IETF don't have unlimited resource. Conclusion of HyBi did make sense.
>> >
>> > As noted by Barry in his mail about WG conclusion and as Mark said, we can form a supervision again once there's enough interest.
>> >
>> >
>> > > What *is* in-scope here is how (if at all) that protocol interacts with HTTP, including HTTP/2; there are several ways you could implement WebSockets over HTTP/2, and a few pitfalls in doing so that the people on this list will be able to give you feedback on.
>> >
>> > One of the keys of the WiSH proposal is to focus on API level compatibility with WebSocket. But except for that point, it's a general proposal of application of HTTP semantics and HTTP/2's power for full-duplex messaging in the Web. The proposal (one done by Yutaka in 2014 and Van's one also) heavily depends on what the HTTP WG produces (specs, documents and possibly any kind of official/unofficial communications). So, I think there shouldn't be no doubt on need for close work with HTTP WG.
>> >
>> > That said, I agree we need to have the right structure of the community to have the "best" work mode based on various metrics (level of interest for each proposal, their complexity, scope, etc.), and the IESG and the co-chairs are trying to do the best in making the right decision, I think.
>> >
>> > > However, it's hard to do that before there's agreement in the WS community about what the requirements are. Ideally, that community would bring a single proposal that has broad support here for review.
>> >
>> > Mark, does this post of yours imply that you're seeing HyBi ML as one effective representative of WS community at this point with HTTP WG chair hat on?
>> I'm seeing it as the obvious place to hold the discussion; it doesn't have any official status (beyond being the place where hybi happened before), but it's typical practice to keep IETF mailing lists open after a WG concludes, so that the interested parts of the community have a forum.
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham