Re: [hybi] how do we move forward on agreeing on framing?

[Francis Brosnan Blazquez <[e-mail]>]

> I don't agree with such a broad brushed statement like that at all.
> Layers are a convenient way to think about things, but truly layered
> implementations are almost always inferior.
> 
> See varghese's _network algorithmics_ for an amazing treatment of the
> topic.
> (http://www.amazon.com/Network-Algorithmics-Interdisciplinary-Designing-Networking/dp/0120884771/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282314428&sr=8-1 )
> 
> Protocol designers might use layers as a useful way to articulate the
> protocol, but it is incumbent on us to consider all the various
> requirements of different implementation scenarios. That often means
> layering violations in practice. And that's ok.

Obviously we can't take any rule as inviolable, and obviously perfect
layer separation is not possible nor desirable...however, what we have
here is a flagrant attempt to design a complex protocol that was
expected to only provide transport.

It is clear in our particular case, websocket, that it will provide far
more better benefits if the protocol, as long as possible, keeps its
features at the transport level, letting other specialized application
protocols on top of it to provide what the user is looking for.

Without considering the websocket final design, inevitably people will
layer its favorite protocol on top of it. Assuming that, WG should focus
on providing features that won't be provided by upper level apps, AND,
as long as possible do to include features that are already available on
them.
-- 
Francis Brosnan Blazquez <[e-mail]>
ASPL