[hybi] hum(s) followup

[Salvatore Loreto <[e-mail]>]

Today ends the call for consensus/verification on the three hum(s) asked during
the F2F meeting in Maastricht as per mail:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02954.html

the list has been really active during the last week, with a lot of discussions and proposals.
Thank to all of you for the time and the energy you are putting to move the protocol forward.


1) for the hum#1 asked in the mail:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02960.html

nobody raised technical reason against.

so the chairs declare consensus on it!



2) for the hum#2 asked in the mail:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02961.html

nobody raised technical reason against.

so the chairs declare consensus on it!



3) the hum#3 asked in the mail:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02964.html

has received a lot of traffic in the ml (around 60 mails from more then 15 distinct contributors)
the discussion has reached a state where there is a rough consensus for including within
the framing :

- the ability to fragment a message because it helps in several scenarios
   (e.g. avoid extra buffering when the length of a message is not known upfront; allows signaling
    an error when something bad happes; etc.)

there is also a rough consensus for:

- having a large length field within the framing, so to be able to send very large files in a single frame
   (taking advantages of sendfile or equivalent methods)



The chairs ask Gabriel and Maciej (the requirements draft authors) to update their draft to reflect the consensus
and submit a new version soon.

S.Moonesamy as WG secretary will take care to update the issues tracker.


The huge discussion in the mailing list has also highlight the need to check consensus about
- Multiplexing
- Compression
- Metadata
- Mechanism for extensions

I will send out tomorrow separate emails to check if there is or not consensus for each of the above items
and also to check which of them receive consensus to be included already in the protocol and which can
eventually be added in the future.


cheers
Sal