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

[Tobias Oberstein <[e-mail]>]

Hi Salvatore,

 > 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:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wampws/LlKjMF3ZJf8

For your convenience, here is the summary up to now:

- Konstantin Burkalev, Atlantis communications, Russia
- Elvis Stansvik, KTH Royal Inst. of Tech., Schweden
- Francesco Longo, University of Messina, Italy
- David Chappelle,Topology LP, Canada
- Emile Cormier, Butterfly Energy Systems, Canada
- Tobias Oberstein, Tavendo, Germany

Among those, there are 4 WAMP implementors (have written and maintain 
one or more WAMP implementations). There are multiple companies and 
academia represented.

I will DM more implementors and users .. I am pretty sure there is interest.

How "much" interest is needed? How should we "proof"? Should I ask all 
to speak up on this mailing list?

>
> Other then a clear technical proposal(s)

So do we need a draft RFC written _before_ we can request to recharter 
the WG?

>
> 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.

Apart from that: HTTP2 interest/uptake compared to WebSocket - we could 
of course have a discussion about that, but is that relevant for the 
_WebSocket_ WG? I mean: WebSocket _does_ have significant uptake, 
interest and use on the street. It has an RFC.

Are you saying we should discontinue WebSocket just because there is 
HTTP2? I definitely would NOT buy that view, and I'd have some arguments 
(technical and other) to support that. But I'd like rather avoid getting 
into such discussions anyway (unproductive). HTTP2 does what it does - 
or not. But this is the WebSocket WG, which I would have assumed 
represents the interests and continues innovation in WS - not?

Please excuse if I don't understand the right way to approach this under 
IETF traditions / wording .. or miss something. Not intended.

Cheers,
/Tobias

>
> Br
>
> Salvatore
>
> *From:*Takeshi Yoshino [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* den 14 september 2015 11:11
> *To:* Tobias Oberstein
> *Cc:* Barry Leiba; Salvatore Loreto; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [hybi] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-hybi-permessage-compression-28.txt
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Tobias Oberstein
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Great; I've checked it too, and I agree.  I've approved it, and you
>     should see the announcement soon.
>
>
> Awesome! The WebSocket compression extension is of great practical value.
>
> Thank you, Tobias for your continued contribution including discussion
> and building the reliable and comprehensive test suites.
>
>
>         The working group will remain open until the RFC is published, after
>         which I'll close the working group, but leave the mailing list open
>
>
>     Regarding the closing of the working group, I would like to ask what
>     is required to recharter the WG to work on a specific WebSocket
>     subprotocol.
>
> I also wonder what we'll lose and what we won't (in addition to the
> mailing list) after WG close. I was worried that we might lose the
> mailing list too.
>
> I guess at least we'll be unable to raise I-Ds as WG items while the WG
> is closed.
>
>
>     The current WG charter has this to say:
>
>     """
>     The working group will also serve as a discussion venue for
>     subprotocols.  However, no subprotocol is currently chartered as a
>     deliverable, and the WG must be rechartered to work on any
>     subprotocols.
>     """ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-hybi/
>
>     The subprotocol I would like to start working on is:
>
>     "The Web Application Messaging Protocol (WAMP)"
>
>     http://wamp.ws/
>     https://github.com/tavendo/WAMP/
>     http://www.iana.org/assignments/websocket/websocket.xml#subprotocol-name
>
>     WAMP was the 3rd WebSocket subprotocol officially registered at
>     IANA, has gone through 3+ years of development, has nearly two dozen
>     independent and interoparable implementations, and an active community.
>
>     I have asked on the WAMP implementors mailing list if there is
>     interest in working on a RFC for WAMP, and multiple responses
>     indicate that there is indeed interest:
>
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wampws/LlKjMF3ZJf8
>
>     I am original author of WAMP, and have been active during the
>     development of WebSocket and the WebSocket compression extension on
>     the Hybi working group.
>
>     I also created and maintain the Autobahn WebSocket testsuite - an
>     automated testsuite for WS used by most implementors.
>
>     http://autobahn.ws/testsuite/
>
>     Apart from that I wrote a couple of WebSocket implementations in
>     different languages.
>
>     However, I never wrote an RFC nor do I know a lot about IETF
>     processes and such.
>
>     Hence my naive question: what's required to start working on WAMP
>     within the context of this WG?
>
>     Cheers,
>     /Tobias
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     hybi mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>