[hybi] Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to WebSockets

Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com> Thu, 28 April 2016 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@adligo.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CAD412D869 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 4S6MgICChOvP for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (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 77ED612D641 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x230.google.com with SMTP id bi2so1244115igb.0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=8u9msNWKEIF9oOwi//+BDs3ZgWoXjOfYlfq+SX3D360=; b=Qvz60hA6I1CoeBfjxonIITCDPg7sNczPEv8yRFc3zNeTBtwUM4SU0Ha+47YpWZovWp 2EQ9m8DFVTDlAWnXw1rHcuaiCaaEDNlkxh7GKnwv5WMyZH8iVAkaCx/l8lLPRrcqf57M dC2quHrPWxMm+ogvXtkWw+kyA1GHjH1PcjUvFSTmOrreMEM46b3OLGhoUVgTVoB3hG0d x5hMyWfoKn4lNQEGUhRQiDfdThJLNoCgVRkNdjW+XSwvyyAoXCyX4Oh+Sy+wnzL8AXlq +ZG0megClbrzqvyDODfKYLr413YN9BHDIHZY9Si8LdEtrvgiok3N3J8utzLOCFiO1ofw /K/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=8u9msNWKEIF9oOwi//+BDs3ZgWoXjOfYlfq+SX3D360=; b=HzK7sGYer2NtJ7we+dZ7aU2Nr19Uf+4OHSCRgbViz6O4v72QHM3wKl5pSvBszP1gnt XplxEyai7sPt8JhtJsG0WO5j1QXsyG6YwAxvlpk53RYdmi5Yq+bx7u6llUx2pUaBYexc cgAPBALhYN8KAtZk229zlJ4EjNbSwssbeNKQTSJVrFm0qv3BKrypSFcLP3soYC/f4oyu aC0/LNAWHq6TCyCbAlxmy76Sdz51Bn81gSFlpIbVA3lWQBt2pTUxr90QYjd4qJ6KoTrn JvIx2omLBtvlpB2rEOB4bcBs7chXz4Yph7AcTYTUi/I5nwwYBPAjMcsVv8+8l7L10ZKF HcBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX9rWn2f+mTVweAhTX/PG+71bePUntGS5dS7+Ts8I1AGnei1jJRlgFcFDuveVmsdiY2NNmrqyQZS8TVMA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.221.67 with SMTP id qc3mr21159383igc.77.1461870939815; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.39.80 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:15:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CANEdHmiUFf_+1QToMUJ_X3+jROVij+c=zy212ZhNzA4+pW4bJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11343b781362160531905a19
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/UYJ0Miu_zTqmNXm8zii2ooRjAZ8>
Subject: [hybi] Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to WebSockets
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:15:42 -0000

Hi All,

I just wanted to point out that there is not always a hierarchy between
protocols. For example the protocol I am working on ASBP (Asynchronous
Services Bus Protocol) is intended to be layered on top of any of;

WebSockets

Http/2

Http 1.1

Http 1.0

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adligo-hybi-asbp/?include_text=1


In the ASBP case I would guess that I should register ASBP as a WebSocket
sub protocol, as well as a sub protocol for all of the above protocols.


On the other hand perhaps the title 'Websockets Sub-Protocol Registry'
should be changed to 'Protocols Supported Over WebSockets' in order to
facilitate clarity.


Cheers,

Scott