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

[Константин Буркалев <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Barry, Salvatore and all!

My name is Konstantin, i’m a software architect in telecommunication company, 
also i’m author and maintainer of 3 WAMP implementations.

Just want to say, that from my point of view there is enough interest in WAMP libraries, 
which, of course, are based on WAMP protocol. 
I am already involved in development of WAMP spec, and i’m willing to continue work on WAMP as RFC.

I know different cases of WAMP usage, among them there are:
* IoT devices and systems, I’m also working on a subject. And right now small chips and devices (for ex. ESP8266) support only http/1.1.
* Mobile applications, based on JavaScript engines and platforms like React Native
And so on. 

We (i mean WAMP implementators, like Tobias or Emile) are already doing a big work in developing WAMP specification and fulfilling the gaps, and there are more and more 
people, involved in WAMP community. Just check the WAMP mailing list (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/wampws <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/wampws>)


> 14 сент. 2015 г., в 16:20, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> написал(а):
> 
>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

With best regards, KOsTIK
[e-mail]