IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] WS framing alternative

Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> Mon, 02 November 2009 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <pieterh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CF93A689F for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:02:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zqVJPX4ian08 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5315F3A6A3D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so648135fga.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:02:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7voAAcFqVSvuzZHwfNpoeyUJ/8nAhqX1vNKOhrteWV4=; b=x8uMtv4WJVIFW/07v5yndx6xM6Rgf815PxEpBd+bkMe8Xb7y0I9GwRyoImSN7Qfr71 Yd/Ik4s9KVX12jRJZJamQ3zMEYFbH4YnYPojHK8HR8accq3BYh92+9ftUvkSSktbQIwv DejlTQNz+t/liK7dgld1T0IjxvSo1Nq+J6EPE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=KG8KzsrRPS5bR3NbCowcmNK0/rkAndv/W8m44+GtuPTWYY9loGLrKoAhQEXt1ZHDbA U8YKP5TdcAiWL/FxIbW1YvZYOXyyywqdI1fht/bQgzZQ5Sc3i1IQPvVPncx1/BSpt16f /QixOuLtAhaJGQb5HA/le6E5/+d8jeVUAYQOM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: pieterh@gmail.com
Received: by 10.86.170.4 with SMTP id s4mr2341892fge.9.1257177752099; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:02:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ACE82410-B820-494F-906F-03A413D6CFE3@gbiv.com>
References: <mailman.3820.1256908248.4669.hybi@ietf.org> <91a5e3ea0910301458q465e5778kb46bcaedc65595a6@mail.gmail.com> <4AEB7AD1.7050509@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910310401280.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AEE33AE.4080601@webtide.com> <ACE82410-B820-494F-906F-03A413D6CFE3@gbiv.com>
From: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:02:12 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 20115f82ff5ca3fe
Message-ID: <5821ea240911020802s37358163q4bf1a677fa3f928@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] WS framing alternative
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Nov 2009 16:02:16 -0000

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> My advice is: stop trying to convince each other that your ideals,
> use cases, and design theories are even remotely similar.  They
> are not even comparable.  They do not belong in the same WG.
> Neither one is suitable for standardization at this time.

Nicely put.

Premature standardization is just cause for argument and BWTP vs.
WebSocket is a false choice based (afaics from this long and
interesting thread) on the fear that there is space for only one of
these in the IETF stack.

It's implementations that drive adoption, and standardization comes
after implementation and adoption, not before.  (At least in this
non-consortium process.)

We are arriving at consensus, which is that both WebSocket and BWTP
(and other designs) are important tools for understanding the problem
space.  One does not choose between tools, one collects as many as
possible.

-Pieter

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status