Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> I'm sorry but despite your original aims, enabling amateur programmers 
>> to write protocols that avoid the need for vendor supplied 
>> infrastructure is not the prime reason this WG has come into existence.
> 
> If that isn't a goal for this working group, then that's fine, but it 
> means I'm in the wrong group.

Please don't take your bat and ball and go home.


The charter is clear what this working group is for:

  The Hypertext-Bidirectional (HyBi) working group will seek
  standardization of one approach to maintain bidirectional
  communications between the HTTP client, server and intermediate
  entities, which will provide more efficiency compared to the current
  use of hanging requests.


However, your concerns about developer experience are included
in the charter:

  The Working Group should consider:
   * Implementer experience
   * Impact on existing implementations and deployments
   * Ability to achieve broad implementation
   * Ability to address broader use cases than those covered in
     the input document


> The reason I'm here is that the IETF asked me to work on Web Sockets in 
> this working group. 

it would be really good if you took up that invitation,
but with a realization that it is a different process than
what you are used to.

The IETF has different goals to your own, due to the fact
that it is a collective organization and represents the
rough consensus of many peoples goals.

We keep ending up in threads like these because whenever
a dissenting view is posted is posted, one of your
most frequent responses is that you don't care about
that particular concern.

But if websockets is to be standardized at the IETF,
it is no longer your protocol and your concerns
are just some among many.    The ball park concerns
of the IETF community have been outlined in the
charter.   We are now narrowing them down in a proces
to produce a requirements document.

If you want you concern of enabling amateur programmers
to implement the protocol included, then please
propose it as a requirement and see if others
agree.

Similarly, I'm concerned about websockets transiting
intermediaries and I too will be proposing requirements
to that effect, and they too will need community
support.


regards