Re: [hybi] web socket protocol in "last call"?

["Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)" <infinity at lindenlab.com>]

wow. WS is in last call? not being able to continue work on putting
something like RHTTP or BWTP over WS is a bit of a deal-breaker for
me.

but. i suppose there's no reason we can't work on BWTP independent of
WS. i was just sorta hoping there would have been a way to coordinate
these efforts.

i guess there's also no reason now to meet at apachecon next week
about WS. i mean, why bother meeting about something you can't change?

however, if anyone wants to meet about BWTP at apachecon, i'm totally
hip to that. also, krunk. i'm not going to be in hiroshima for the
hybi BoF, but i would advocate strongly for including something like
BWTP as a deliverable alongside WS, assuming WS would be something for
HyBi instead of httpbis.

WS is essentially unusable for me in it's current form. or rather, i
could use it, but why? my use case of establishing reverse
request-response semantic recognizable by intermediaries that supports
channel multiplexing is possible over WS, but then again, it's also
possible by extending HTTP, so why not just do that?

-cheers
-meadhbh / infinity
--
   infinity linden (aka meadhbh hamrick)  *  it's pronounced "maeve"
         http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden



On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 08:36, Salvatore Loreto
<salvatore.loreto at ericsson.com> wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Moreover I have seen a lot of mail exchanges raising possible problems in
>>> the
>>> current version of the WebSocket draft
>>> that you should consider and address in the draft or provide to the IETF
>>> community good technical reasons why you choose to not consider them
>>>
>>
>> There's a couple of e-mails from earlier today that I haven't yet
>> considered, but other than that, I've read and considered all the e-mails to
>> this list, and provided detailed reasons for rejecting any proposals I've
>> not adopted. If I missed one, please let me know.
>>
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> actually in the IETF process one of the main reason to accept or reject a
> proposal/issue/"request to change something"
> is based on *"rough consensus"* reached among people involved in the mailing
> list discussion ,
> especially when the reason for accepting or rejecting are based more on
> philosophical then technical issues.
>
> The decision to adopt or not a proposal should come from the consensus and
> not from the decision of a single person.
> I am sorry to notice, following the ml discussion, that a lot of the
> proposals have been discarded for philosophical reasons
> even if the majority of the people in the ml were in favour.
> I am not saying that you should adopt them straight, but only that you
> should keep open the discussion on controversial
> issues and seek a sort of consensus, among people involved in the
> discussion, on how to solve them
>
>
> /Sal
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>