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

Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com> Sun, 27 November 2016 14:41 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 DC7FF1294F4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:41:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.997 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_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 ZAHlfWlKljKq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:41:02 -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 EC9C0126D74 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cB0Zp-0003Ct-Ct for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:37:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:37:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cB0Zp-0003Ct-Ct@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 <vans554@gmail.com>) id 1cB0Zd-00011n-9f for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:36:57 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com ([209.85.220.177]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <vans554@gmail.com>) id 1cB0ZW-0001mx-RW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:36:52 +0000
Received: by mail-qk0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x190so117373712qkb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:36:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tPSjf/g9GAIoI5TpeOiAyZltIOdp5RD4Unkby4NV8yQ=; b=V6j7eQ6CUUrStkoXQC1xtMF+bSdr45LjeLz53k+aaLdGOBYPz9iMVIZ1XnH5n8+UvT Fk/l6IWewVniR6bp5WT5CUa7njgHUTqLZdWCyuzVOXu1DvWs5KAFOV8Zz2IstLN+B2Rw c+zGNC6yNdbWPzMuqSH2umKQ5fWCGrVfN+u5ndNr5fscxrEHxqyjRYV9d0z4CAn1Fzzr ReNrDGn5p1SuPMXIcpez1WimPob+YvLGw7MXPsyOvAj3uIq+XPzLTaU6De6xAry2PZtf qoKjwzG6bNZ8/pVIPRxet2BDDEOR3wQ3Llm/1Xq6/pyWvAyQYl5om61b2ehKywqyENRH 55Nw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tPSjf/g9GAIoI5TpeOiAyZltIOdp5RD4Unkby4NV8yQ=; b=HoHvC51F4s48OLb5RjH/PI8Y/MpgQQeIQL1Lxdwl4JKWm1hAG84pF9EQBofg5PO1Z2 wIhcA3wPgp3Trp07RvWFOSdwWlFkj53SG/pBBJwlYPCzP1s4gWcOIFB1MhETz5soMvkL /I9AkYdQ6eUeBAFsggumCu96p7g1TUa+HVsINRlC+gRMPM1IHS7X7mTAt6mZYzZDGq9L w0+37fBJHXGl8u03YFdc1t1XLEsR18ITw5k6jA3eOctckLl6hJdJgfimbG1i3SjtvIF9 kgXQeRIy77/hQXxwjd1NMYYpIHJ3vG3y9RPkuCcR4Hnm5bWCTFFq/vA4ypxv4Ams6rCd kXuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02vYsHSWZjmN8DiDvBvkvEic/lNtURzF4kGgdc63HT4/zKLMK5yvBJldj3YaxKOBESjnOXgiMsAydDDfQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.3.67 with SMTP id 64mr16702029qkd.257.1480257384791; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:36:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.209.8 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 06:36:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <DCFCC7B0-717E-496A-8B4D-C409A1B965F0@mnot.net>
From: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 09:36:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG-EYCiVExcyHLoXB1ixQCKduxUPTVOnVX1XrmFJ3b72Y8AAFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c81ca98c59c0542494700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.177; envelope-from=vans554@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f177.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.480, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, 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 1cB0ZW-0001mx-RW 739285e753a435b624b4af7743f039d5
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/CAG-EYCiVExcyHLoXB1ixQCKduxUPTVOnVX1XrmFJ3b72Y8AAFg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33022
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>

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.



On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> > 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/
>
>