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

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Fri, 28 October 2016 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B9212957C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.951 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWG16Gn0WK2c for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC47B129A6D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c09yu-0006Lr-DO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:26:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:26:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c09yu-0006Lr-DO@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <costin@gmail.com>) id 1c09yp-0006Fd-Md for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:26:07 +0000
Received: from mail-yw0-f177.google.com ([209.85.161.177]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <costin@gmail.com>) id 1c09yi-0004bZ-Tv for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:26:01 +0000
Received: by mail-yw0-f177.google.com with SMTP id h14so93492071ywa.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uj2TTNwHhP0Xzys9zJ/wp4CHNs+itwZfC/b0Qmymt8I=; b=OD5qJ35qacfYrzjmwppn7hyXg1cq+4vOW8iMtKZZkiDbs4T0k5mwJXSvk2P9qAa6WN VNoCjD8mTfjyT7rnPt0H6zwe9kNyYpwX6C1Q0FUVbJun6bKWWRkxDgbg6cdddiR9t3YG XYPIYOWgGDErCiyxIRDRvIAFAWVKLK6BfVbc52EGPofjKK22RgxyoyTkyF+4Ze8kfMwl CWf7mX8fDGq9sM/jj4NLj3LVzQcQ6+Ofiy1dGnLg8tuipahNMzMEOvbDt08/VIjL4xZu cWmHr6qu68NcH2invM+HWFozqzpJqLA48+8dmLvQGeIceBTVMsFB4yDnNIQDTK4yBiNQ 4vqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uj2TTNwHhP0Xzys9zJ/wp4CHNs+itwZfC/b0Qmymt8I=; b=Odykhw1F9cigTn6E6bCXwe+/6kkNEjcXY+I+GoL2XtUqwFuLv6EOOr18xpVz86Gbi2 2IMhwPZesEZdB2V61AGxDx9/d6SyU0P1L6cDhb2hWjIGAJIYM4MqoUr+kVQUpVw+8buV +bt5GAqZRHalDNhtAU2Af8TNeSMLrcURvQVg4Bk8jNCRsqC8OQZ5bwqNm9xNyYZ6pCMn JLTX7hejMsj2a9iwmk8bhzqU/EAqF3xi1uOD18MzhkTPJZaRGieV4mTfBZ2sFDNXr94a BtQI6BPlT4EhRRV4dlEsupcgATQzTbDOd0ji5bPhrmli0QgqHUGIfaafnlA0BaVp4mHE 2Adg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcMpCuyFjr11KfUfoyZaWlaMdXLKi5+nyYgW6GHURwwcUsW9vojE7jRQfQnavnxTc4/DJtb37kpfPfdWQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.101.143 with SMTP id u137mr2459151itb.66.1477671935002; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH9hSJZdBJ02+Z6o=aanZ=5PN=9VwyL1ZcX2jct-6f_FFivLGA@mail.gmail.com> <0f79ddf6-c455-c41a-f269-a1bdcef05b14@ninenines.eu> <CAH9hSJb2R9gv2vNqoyTjbMV4hZTYdpX2PoAoYgWUT1UuigLHRA@mail.gmail.com> <5541be74-afcc-6aef-404e-63acb2f608eb@ninenines.eu> <CAH9hSJarsNFqX1tAL7BZmZQwUrEQs1X3wtrAPuMyz8s-k_7WRg@mail.gmail.com> <43998e7b-9227-7562-b2c6-c08134065e22@ninenines.eu> <CAD3-0rPRPzVvYb6_Z4wDZp73L5Kyb7LmE0P5j4A-2VSRwT7FMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJb=mWdHP8xcBis8-jhWgQTfN-cgQXVV3eCyT4U8JYQHZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH9hSJb=mWdHP8xcBis8-jhWgQTfN-cgQXVV3eCyT4U8JYQHZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:25:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-FqnLaRvyQgXXkoNQPKcyMhv-O3RN67CMw5L_-1iQ9c6mhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TG/Dr2MgSG9ndWlu?= <essen@ninenines.eu>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11494912c7d1b6053fef4e79
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.161.177; envelope-from=costin@gmail.com; helo=mail-yw0-f177.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c09yi-0004bZ-Tv 934adb4de21903422bd2177a982d9f33
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP8-FqnLaRvyQgXXkoNQPKcyMhv-O3RN67CMw5L_-1iQ9c6mhw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32705
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I think WiSH could be great as a fallback to the webpush protocol push
promises, in devices
that don't fully support http/2, and for webpush delivery receipts.

In the context of IoT: since continuation is available, any reason to
support 64-bit-length frames ?
Even 32 bit ( 4G ) frames may be unpractical.  I don't know how common this
int encoding scheme
is - but using varint or fixed may be easier to handle.

Costin

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:06 AM Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu> wrote:
>
> On 10/25/2016 11:54 AM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Oh, sorry for being unclear. I meant that we'll use
> "application/subprotocol+webstream". I.e. introducing +webstream as a
> new media type suffix.
>
>
> Ah!
>
> OK I have no problem with that.
>
>
> is it true only registered suffixes are allowed, e.g. json, xml etc?
>
>
> Did you mean the prefix?
>
>
>
> application/webstream; protocol=...  seems more legit and most
> subprotocols are not registered media types either..
>
>
> I skimmed RFC 6838. I think application/xxx+suffix would be subject to the
> same rule for general rule for media types even if +suffix is registered.
>
> We can choose to put the protocol parameter under control of IANA, but
> yes, we'll have options to decide whether we make it so or not.
>
>
> Re: the actual parameter "protocol", we may want to mention it similar to
> utf-8 checking, as a future concern for providing websocket compatibility.
>
>
> I'm adding a section about that. For WebSocket compatibility, its value
> should follow the token ABNF.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <snip>
>     * By the way, don't know if consistency is desirable, by maybe
>     calling it application/web-stream is better. Maybe not.
>
>
> Could you please elaborate the proposal?
>
>
> I mean there's already text/event-stream, so application/webstream is not
> consistent with it (missing the dash). But maybe it doesn't matter.
>
>     * The HEAD method behaves as usual. The PUT method is probably not
>     compatible with doing this. PATCH and DELETE are not compatible AFAIK.
>
>
> I'm feeling that we should just limit the scope of the proposal to GET
> and POST.
>
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Thanks for the great work! I look forward to implementing this.
>
>
> --
> Loïc Hoguin
> https://ninenines.eu
>
>
>