Re: [Jmap] draft-murchison-jmap-websocket as a JMAP working product

["Neil Jenkins" <[e-mail]>]

We also discussed the open issues at the JMAP session in IETF 103: 
 
>  o Should we allow push notifications over the WS connection? 
 
The consensus in the room was "yes", we should use the connection we already have. We would therefore need to: 
 * Add a tag to each JSON object sent through the socket so we know what it is. I would suggest an `@type` property with values of `"Request"` (sent by the client to the server), `"Response"` and `"StateChange"` (sent by the server for API responses and pushes respectively). (These are the names of the objects in the JMAP spec.) 
 
>  o Should we allow out of order processing of requests? 
 
Again the consensus was "yes"; you can use a single WebSocket connection as the equivalent to parallel HTTP API requests. This means we also need an `id` property on Request and Response objects so they can be correlated by the client.  
 
We probably also need to clarify that the core `maxConcurrentRequests` limit is applies to inflight requests over the WebSocket. We may need a new limit (exposed in the capability object) for establishing concurrent WebSocket connections (although a client shouldn't really need more than 1; that's the point)?
 
Ken, are you able to update the spec and we can publish a new version as a JMAP working group product? Thanks. 
 
Neil.