IETF Logo Mail Archive

[hybi] Venue of discussion, was: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 27 May 2010 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 933B33A6A1A for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2010 01:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.667, BAYES_50=0.001]
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 atjEXsgb0N0L for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2010 01:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 65E333A68BC for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2010 01:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 May 2010 08:56:05 -0000
Received: from p508FFB57.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.251.87] by mail.gmx.net (mp032) with SMTP; 27 May 2010 10:56:05 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX188a2pZiNc8xwpOWLO1CIx+rlDVtrpO5GOZrMTXjZ +8+nS5Du9r3+WA
Message-ID: <4BFE339E.3060201@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:55:58 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20100523104659.05fcea60@elandnews.com> <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37305A2FC3CC1@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <AANLkTin9Llyz2Ejbqk7iVtuHTSTeN2xSAFN8ATUbIxtV@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin9Llyz2Ejbqk7iVtuHTSTeN2xSAFN8ATUbIxtV@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: [hybi] Venue of discussion, was: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00
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: Thu, 27 May 2010 08:56:21 -0000

On 24.05.2010 20:03, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM,<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>  wrote:
> ...
> Generally, the whatwg mailing list has a higher ratio of technical
> content to meta-discussion, which means it's more approachable for
> ...

Observation from many Working Groups I am member of (W3C) or follow 
(IETF, W3C): the amount of process discussion usually goes up when 
there's friction with other communities, such as the WHATWG in this case.

W3C HTML-WG has the same problem, IETF HTTP-STATE, for instance, does 
not seem to have that problem.

For HyBi, the charter says:

   In particular, the working group has liaised with the W3C WebApps
   working group around the WebSockets protocol and the need to support
   the WebSocket API; as agreed by both parties, the HyBi working group
   will take on prime responsibility for the specification of the
   WebSockets protocol, taking into consideration all the requirements,
   needs and eventual concerns raised by the W3C WebApps working group.
   The draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol "The Web Socket protocol" is
   considered as the input document for the working group.

So this WG is supposed to be in control of the protocol. Directing 
people to send comments elsewhere simply is counter-productive, in 
particular as the participation rules essentially are the same (just 
subscribe to a mailing list).

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email