Re: [hybi] WS framing alternative

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Fri, 30 October 2009 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.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 F3A463A68B1 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 wKGZAfEQed9u for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f228.google.com (mail-gx0-f228.google.com [209.85.217.228]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5973A6844 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so3340494gxk.9 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.46.30 with SMTP id t30mr4165276ybt.50.1256944817673; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.10.1.9? (60-242-119-126.tpgi.com.au [60.242.119.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 16sm239620gxk.11.2009.10.30.16.20.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4AEB74A8.50708@webtide.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:20:08 +1100
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
References: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F0F1EA72C@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <a9699fd20910270426u4aa508cepf557b362025ae5db@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910271824200.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AE76137.8000603@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910272118590.25608@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <20091029123121.GA24268@almeida.jinsky.com> <4AEA0E6C.1060607@webtide.com> <4AEA5713.8020008@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910300346010.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20091029214250.028ec768@resistor.net> <5821ea240910300433r3274d311r5664c1ea3fc56bed@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5821ea240910300433r3274d311r5664c1ea3fc56bed@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:20:04 -0000

Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> A better way to resolve the conflicts of interest that many of us
> bring to such discussions is to create competition between solutions,
> i.e. multiple protocols that implementors can choose.  Over time that
> will drive the solutions towards an optimum.

Pieter,

After initial failures to get my concerns addressed in WS, I
did decide to propose alternative solutions. BWTP mk I and BWTP mk II
resulted.

But now it appears that a working group cannot be formed to consider
multiple solutions and that it will be free to consider any solution
so long as it is websocket.

Thus I've stopped efforts on developing BWTP as it appears it will
be wasted effort.

We are in the strange circumstance that whatwg does not want to
deal with concerns other than js in browsers and the IETF does not
want to consider solutions other than what the whatwg is proposing.

I do feel that the process has been setup for failure and unless
we can broaden the requirements or consider other alternatives
then we are doomed to endless unproductive debates between people
with different agendas.

regards