Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org> Mon, 05 September 2011 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <sh@defuze.org>
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 201B121F86AF; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 02:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.876
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.876 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00zHy-GEs7vp; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 02:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C6C21F84E1; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 02:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so14412214pzk.18 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.35.193 with SMTP id k1mr6786104pbj.217.1315215204627; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.113.8 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 02:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [195.101.247.164]
In-Reply-To: <CAO228NsGwxguyAdMZwYiuydMhxOTyZf4=Wr3uAO+yNN_37ZHZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5355F3EF-DD59-4D3C-9578-84043A3B8E90@gbiv.com> <4E620772.9090900@gmx.de> <4E6228F9.2030108@gmx.de> <20110903194323.GA19164@1wt.eu> <CAO228Nv=vRy=m=_hxjL=Lrndd43ykPjgcCSX7MuHYKNM8CstYw@mail.gmail.com> <CALkdAkhGyDy7N+GaDyD2rnaqtG7Tg2tpaqtVy3PB=VN9mCuUuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO228NsGwxguyAdMZwYiuydMhxOTyZf4=Wr3uAO+yNN_37ZHZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 11:33:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CALkdAkjcv7+XDtWioumbzuwbf-aD7PPbU6_97SWi9vthpp5+Sw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>
To: Joel Martin <hybi@martintribe.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520eb0d13339004ac2e6776
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@iesg.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 05 Sep 2011 09:31:46 -0000

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Joel Martin <hybi@martintribe.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>
>  wrote:
>
>>  +1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty
>>> well
>>>
>>
>> Yet it never was worded that way when this WG started debating mainly WS.
>> In fact, I don't recall any other protocol being discussed on this board so
>> I disagree with the term "requirement" in this very case.
>>
>>
> My point is that Willy's paragraph is a concise summary the current (and
> original) requirements document for WebSockets and the HyBi charter too for
> that matter:
>
> Original WebSocket requirements doc:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-loreto-hybi-requirements-00
> Current WebSocket requirements doc:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-02>
>
> Original WebSocket charter:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/hybi/charters?item=charter-hybi-2010-01-26.txt
> Current WebSocket charter: http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/hybi-charter
>
> IMO, the current protocol design fits quite well with the HyBi charter and
> WebSocket requirements. One could argue that the charter and requirements
> document are flawed, but given the starting point, the current result has
> almost fulfilled the original vision (the remaining item is wide adoption,
> but that seems very likely assuming the WG work isn't derailed in the
> meantime).
>
>

Fair enough. Though I'd say we still lack large set of implementations,
specially at intermediaries side, as well as other use-cases beyond what was
initially provided.

-- 
- Sylvain
http://www.defuze.org
http://twitter.com/lawouach