Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique

Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com> Mon, 05 October 2015 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893C11ACD3E for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 zSFRoJ4vnzqz for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x229.google.com (mail-oi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (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 9EAC61A1A7E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oibi136 with SMTP id i136so90725552oib.3 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=du2HPdCXVspI1yOoHKWScfU39HvK7HV/RUugZ3yYbws=; b=eGXhIP0D/DV7Pbs/8RENTY4ta7ruEHNe+Y0hHHvME9uH5DNTrLc8pEcsgI1qHATvhp oNiWp5Zi9ZhEVXFHAiNRdknZKKDXv96ZQjvsU8NtH0OoEeCFFo7WtPXzfaioLaLGTfnW arzFm5Q3rGPr1SZLB8UgcUYia5W4sYZfebypPsl++3jvH6nCn/8XIYXtjJPjubty5tG5 ayiamrcx8jSKp9IZHwC8h8Q4HUzTmWQXjICMIDrN8iYVFR+fQ6vz0pgPpv2wcx7FYYTa mxMHgPvD2x6fxX1FmNNI1dP7ESh9HUscSFsV8PbN32NC/0/1NQ6Q+okGk/3emN68n/+Z zfnA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.97.196 with SMTP id v187mr16521679oib.91.1444051713912; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 06:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.48.203 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAM70yxD9UQ5ZS6aotOqkq9Fz3Hj5LE8V+b=+hw4goZqY62fP9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM70yxD9UQ5ZS6aotOqkq9Fz3Hj5LE8V+b=+hw4goZqY62fP9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:28:33 -0300
Message-ID: <CAM70yxAoda=GV-xA-duxQU3Ac_=SG84zHAYNcctZo3KGyBFW-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d393871f70905215b7d41
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/7azG0JAjDgc9F4OYnKfjsGqk4n4>
Subject: Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hybi/>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:28:36 -0000

In case it matters, I should disclose to the mailing list that I'm the
author of CppWAMP, a C++ WAMP client implementation:
https://github.com/ecorm/cppwamp

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com>
wrote:

> First, let me say that I am very happy to see WAMP being drafted as an
> IETF RFC. We at Butterfly Energy Systems are currently using WAMP as the
> backbone for an upcoming building automation system. The integration of
> PubSub and RPC within the same protocol works beautifully for a system that
> needs to perform both monitoring and control. The language-agnostic nature
> of WAMP allows us to use Javascript on the web front-end, while being able
> to use C++ on the backend, all without having to write a "middleman" web
> server app.
>
> I started reviewing the WAMP RFC draft. I wanted to be able to add
> comments to the text, annotate changes for fixing spelling/grammar, and
> annotate changes for improving the English prose. My proposed changes are
> too numerous to be done via email on a mailing list. I figured the best way
> to proceed was to simply annotate changes in my own GitHub fork of the WAMP
> RFC. If there is a better workflow for collaboration on the same Markdown
> document, please let me know.
>
> So far, I've only had the chance to review up to the Design Philosophy
> section. Please see
> https://github.com/ecorm/wamp-proto/blob/ecorm-rfc-critique-1/rfc/draft-oberstet-hybi-tavendo-wamp-00.md.
> I'll try to complete my review during the next few weeks.
>
> I used strikethrough wherever I made edits. I also used blockquotes as a
> way to insert my comments.
>
> If most of my proposed changes are acceptable, then I can submit a pull
> request that would be more easily mergeable. We can use the Review Comments
> feature of GitHub's pull request to discuss my proposed edits. While
> merging, Tobias/Alex can pick and choose which edits they want to keep and
> those they prefer to reject. We can post links to the pull requests on this
> mailing list to keep everyone informed.
>
> Please let me know if this way of proceeding is sensible, or if there is a
> better way.
>
> Cheers,
> Emile Cormier
>