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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 27 November 2016 06:57 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 9932B129413 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:57:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 F-Q13QHrmQyc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:57:54 -0800 (PST)
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 D8D82120727 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:57:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cAtLq-0000PD-P7 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:54:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:54:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cAtLq-0000PD-P7@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cAtLf-0000Nd-36 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:54:03 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cAtLX-0003Yk-E8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:53:57 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9F7B22E253; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 01:53:29 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAH9hSJacZp4LqAp61yCTsVqSeomSc5aZfTFjQUfbmHrOqr3VGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 17:53:26 +1100
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DCFCC7B0-717E-496A-8B4D-C409A1B965F0@mnot.net>
References: <CAH9hSJZB0SyFiqLqLjd9R-T11yTa12Ekb-H8hYwfc6FeOjD2xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqmU+uBas5zH8oQHkt0zh18YrBm-O-umGPGMkLAjShw1Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJa10DLSozTpXjETyFX0bVYqfRbRFJnmFQNRGeSuZVKWPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG-EYChszHdWhp=o+fdOW+pAN90t61MExzsLnteM3tmf9=N0Yw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJbNk83FT0WqB1tHJvEfaU5CMoAaKRdvy8NTb4zgEUdzBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG-EYCjwptZcsHeDKwyRBhLTREEC4zxXxtTZvNLe2m1ei2r55g@mail.gmail.com> <437A6E14-03A9-42DD-A4B8-921C80EC5729@mnot.net> <1480035079.3044.1.camel@warmcat.com> <8E039C1D-A9B6-40E4-937E-A55D327FBDC5@mnot.net> <1480041123.3044.3.camel@warmcat.com> <20161125065208.GB4488@1wt.eu> <CAH9hSJacZp4LqAp61yCTsVqSeomSc5aZfTFjQUfbmHrOqr3VGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.629, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cAtLX-0003Yk-E8 3d9377c852894f555569a174099545e2
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/DCFCC7B0-717E-496A-8B4D-C409A1B965F0@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33020
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>

> On 25 Nov. 2016, at 7:25 pm, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> 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.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/vreF1jd3I-vsyWN1TiRnFSCEoVI
> 
> > 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   https://www.mnot.net/