[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, 05 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
- [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Emile Cormier
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Takeshi Yoshino
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Emile Cormier
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Simone Bordet
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Emile Cormier
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Tobias Oberstein
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Emile Cormier
- Re: [hybi] WAMP RFC Draft Critique Takeshi Yoshino