[hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique

[Emile Cormier <[e-mail]>]

First, let me say that I am very happy to see WAMP being drafted as an IETF
RFC. We at Butterfly Energy Systems are currently using WAMP as the
backbone for an upcoming building automation system. The integration of
PubSub and RPC within the same protocol works beautifully for a system that
needs to perform both monitoring and control. The language-agnostic nature
of WAMP allows us to use Javascript on the web front-end, while being able
to use C++ on the backend, all without having to write a "middleman" web
server app.

I started reviewing the WAMP RFC draft. I wanted to be able to add comments
to the text, annotate changes for fixing spelling/grammar, and annotate
changes for improving the English prose. My proposed changes are too
numerous to be done via email on a mailing list. I figured the best way to
proceed was to simply annotate changes in my own GitHub fork of the WAMP
RFC. If there is a better workflow for collaboration on the same Markdown
document, please let me know.

So far, I've only had the chance to review up to the Design Philosophy
section. Please see
https://github.com/ecorm/wamp-proto/blob/ecorm-rfc-critique-1/rfc/draft-oberstet-hybi-tavendo-wamp-00.md.
I'll try to complete my review during the next few weeks.

I used strikethrough wherever I made edits. I also used blockquotes as a
way to insert my comments.

If most of my proposed changes are acceptable, then I can submit a pull
request that would be more easily mergeable. We can use the Review Comments
feature of GitHub's pull request to discuss my proposed edits. While
merging, Tobias/Alex can pick and choose which edits they want to keep and
those they prefer to reject. We can post links to the pull requests on this
mailing list to keep everyone informed.

Please let me know if this way of proceeding is sensible, or if there is a
better way.

Cheers,
Emile Cormier