[hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique

Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com> Mon, 05 October 2015 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD8B1B420D for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sEoOlA7v4RKt for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F5EF1B4248 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbzf10 with SMTP id zf10so119380417obb.2 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=A+y4gys2JMcJgr3uqmm/l3vb8/dXs9B4MEFl0WJ4+2A=; b=ghPUymrucQBcAxgz4uWzprzHexQ3OEZK+9Rw9nHZtXpmIyPUeLwLAcum6KhCKjEXx/ C+vvX+v73f6rxGmJU/dUsf17elzzzsrxlNJCpfzoH7GQr6pnWQiR5h66K8p/3oi4FsC4 Nj0e3ub+qg31Oeo7vlnYhzdhGcfVYSYwWbLZmGkVf60E/NOz2492N+WZ5Kv0dKJi92/P zrKjZDm+2rFv9HgpcAqWJXivE1bLEV2mU8A0efGMRCFcSA4HqA0fLElFpZwbyGjUiUNZ S0zk8C8ZhQFvLQkOkoGlSPxbR+zt34frBtmakxIxx5Cfz0Z9f9mmTN1P7ZNZYimY4R1I AcQw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.124.227 with SMTP id ml3mr15476458oeb.16.1444015996368; Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.48.203 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 00:33:16 -0300
Message-ID: <CAM70yxD9UQ5ZS6aotOqkq9Fz3Hj5LE8V+b=+hw4goZqY62fP9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b417997837d700521532cd6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/Owv4hO_3u8VoGDvF7mjBkGZVkmg>
Subject: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 03:33:19 -0000

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