Subject: Re: [hybi] New mailing list: hybi (HTTP "long poll" and related protocols)

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:41:53 +0000 (UTC)

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> As discussed in the APPS area meeting last week, a new mailing list has 
> been created to discuss the standards implications and actions related 
> to HTTP "long poll" techniques (e.g., COMET, BOSH) as well as new 
> protocols that serve similar use cases (e.g., WebSockets, rHTTP).

Thanks!

I notice the description of the list is "Server-Initiated HTTP", while at 
least some of the techniques proposed, in particular Web Socket, are only 
tangentially related to HTTP (WebSocket is a client-initiated Web-aware 
bidirectional socket, it's not server-initiated and the HTTP aspect is 
just an optional bootstrapping mechanism). Is the scope intended to 
include or exclude long-term discussion of such solutions?

Also, what is the process by which discussion on this list can result in a 
standards-track document? Browser vendors have started asking me about 
implementing WebSocket or whatever replaces it, so a clear picture of how 
we get to something stable sooner rather than later would be very helpful. 
(It is an unfortunate reality that once we have multiple implementations 
of a feature, the spec becomes stable by necessity, regardless of whether 
we have had the proper time to review it or not.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:01:36 +1100

> include or exclude long-term discussion of such solutions?

Ah, the original name of the list was si-http; that's a bit of a  
leftover from that discussion. The scope is definitely to include such  
discussions, at least until we figure out otherwise.

> we have had the proper time to review it or not.)

Either something being an individual submission, or by a Working Group  
forming.

AIUI the bar is relatively high for individual submission standards- 
track documents these days; i.e., if there are contentious issues,  
it's likely that it'll need a WG.

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:12:45 -0600

> include or exclude long-term discussion of such solutions?

It's not clear to me what you mean by "scope". This is just a mailing
list, it doesn't set requirements for anything.

> standards-track document? 

That would be the Internet Standards Process: RFC 2026.

The basic idea is that people who are interested in this space might
work to organize a BOF at a future IETF meeting with the purpose of
chartering a working group. As input to the BOF, those people would
publish some Internet-Drafts that define requirements, best practices,
use cases, and the like. (See my notes on the "breakfast BOF" that we
held last week.) That might lead to formation of a working group and
official charter items. And so on.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:24:52 +0000 (UTC)

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > 
> > I notice the description of the list is "Server-Initiated HTTP", while 
> > at least some of the techniques proposed, in particular Web Socket, 
> > are only tangentially related to HTTP (WebSocket is a client-initiated 
> > Web-aware bidirectional socket, it's not server-initiated and the HTTP 
> > aspect is just an optional bootstrapping mechanism). Is the scope 
> > intended to include or exclude long-term discussion of such solutions?
> 

I just meant with respect to what was "on-topic" vs what was "off-topic". 
e.g. presumably discussion of what my cats were up to this morning is not 
in scope for this mailing list. :-)

> > Also, what is the process by which discussion on this list can result 
> > in a standards-track document?
> 

Woah. Ok, good to know. I guess we better get started then. :-)

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:36:45 -0600

> in scope for this mailing list. :-)

I don't run this list, so I'm not the canonical source of information,
but I would think that *at least* the four technologies we discussed at
the AppArea Open Meeting (Bayeux, BOSH, Reverse HTTP, and Web Sockets)
are in scope. If there are other such technologies in play or under
development, I suppose they would be in scope as well. As I see it, part
of what we're doing here is mapping out the problem space, so we need to
talk about what folks are working on.

> Woah. Ok, good to know. I guess we better get started then. :-)

You betcha!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/