Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-permessage-compression-28.txt

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> In order for the wg to be recharted / resurrected
>> It is necessary to be enough interest in the work from several
>> peoples/companies on the items
>
> I figured that, and asked around in the WAMP community:
...
> How "much" interest is needed? How should we "proof"? Should I ask all to
> speak up on this mailing list?

It's hard to put a number on it, but there needs to be enough interest
and commitment to participate that we can rely on progressing
documents and getting meaningful review.  We have been having a lot of
trouble with that over the past couple of *years*, so it's not just a
moderate slowdown.

That said, if we really *do* have enough commitment, I'm willing to
recharter the working group.  I can't speak for the chairs about
whether they're willing to continue, but perhaps we could get new
chairs to take it forward -- Salvatore and Gabriel have chaired this
working group for a long time now.

> So do we need a draft RFC written _before_ we can request to recharter the
> WG?

We don't *need* it, though a draft and some reviews of it would be
some evidence that there's enough interest.

>> At moment it seems that people are more interested to evolve HTTP2 then
>> in WebSocket.
>
> Not sure, maybe there is a misunderstanding: what we would like to work on
> is a specific WebSocket _subprotocol_: an application layer protocol on top
> of WebSocket. We don't want to work on a WebSocket V2.0 or such.

The point is that implementors are less interested in implementing
websocket things, now that http/2 is here.  Layering things on
websockets might not be very useful if implementors are moving to
http/2 instead, for such functions in the future.

But, again, if there really is enough interest in implementing new
function on websockets, and we can see that interest in commitment to
work on the specs, then that might be fine.

Barry