Re: [hybi] how do we move forward on agreeing on framing?

[Francis Brosnan Blazquez <[e-mail]>]

>         I think it is taking to much attention to include advanced
>         features in
>         the base protocol, or to define extensions that allow them,
>         especially
>         when those features can be implemented by protocols already
>         defined like
>         BEEP [1].
>         
>         I'm sure many people is expecting to access to a simple
>         protocol that
>         allows direct connection and bidirectional content transfer
>         from the
>         browser. Nothing else.
> 
> 
> That is true for the API users. The people who have to implement this
> en-masse and at scale have additional requirements. 

Certainly, if we assume websocket should also solve requirements that
may be implemented by other protocols on top of it. 

> We've torpedoed multiplexing for now (and multiplexing is the one
> thing that can help scalability here). 

I don't think so. By making websocket simple and leaving room to
application protocols on top achieves both goals: you still can do
multiplexing and your transport protocol keeps simple.

> Ok, so then we need an extension mechanism in order to implement and
> experiment with enabling multiplexing.

BEEP already provides channel multiplexing and profile selection and it
can be layered on top of websocket. This can provide the scalability you
are looking for without compromising the base protocol.
-- 
Francis Brosnan Blazquez <[e-mail]>
ASPL