IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Fri, 16 April 2010 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DA23A6BF2 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=x tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nxegmt+IqXOR for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.158]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F28428C16B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so292104fgb.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.86.124.4 with SMTP id w4mr1331474fgc.54.1271422575478; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (host116-234-static.43-88-b.business.telecomitalia.it [88.43.234.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12sm692038fgg.9.2010.04.16.05.56.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BC85E60.10501@webtide.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:56:00 +0200
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
References: <h2w5c902b9e1004152345j992b815bz5f8d38f06a19181a@mail.gmail.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E3F313E5@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E3F313E5@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060706040305030300010308"
Subject: Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:06:12 -0000

Martin,

here is my strawman BWTP extension.

The key need is for it to be able to use the spare bits in
the frame type byte.

Note, that xml2rfc is giving me grief, so I've attached
the XML and a horrid PDF dump.   As soon as I get a ms
free I'm sure I'll find out what stupid thing I've done
to the xml.

Note that this is has not yet been submitted as a draft,
but I'm happy to do so when I've got the format right.
Remember that BWTP is little more than a thought
experiment - but I think a worthwhile one to test out
these concepts.

cheers




Thomson, Martin wrote:
> The base protocol need only support feature negotiation for most of these.  It's only when the sub-protocol wants to modify the framing or do something fancy that you need anything more.
> 
> Since there are too many degrees of freedom, it might help if someone is willing to propose a strawman, so...I'm with Justin: let's see it.
> 
> (I think that Greg promised a BWTP over Web Sockets proposal, that might be good candidate.)
> 
> --Martin
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hybi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hybi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Justin Erenkrantz
>> Sent: Friday, 16 April 2010 4:46 PM
>> To: Hybi
>> Subject: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think we're starting to come to a consensus that there is some type
>> of "base" protocol with some type of "sub-protocol" or "extensibility"
>> mechanisms for Web Sockets.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong, but
>> Hixie's latest post seems to indicate a shift towards accepting that
>> type of model.)
>>
>> During the IETF-77 session, I pointed out that we really haven't
>> started any discussions around what those mechanisms would look like
>> in practice.  Given how much we're apparently placing into
>> "sub-protocols", I'd like to kick-off that discussion.
>>
>> So...does anyone have any thoughts to get the ball rolling?  *grin*  --
>> justin
>> _______________________________________________
>> hybi mailing list
>> hybi@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email