Subject: Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 08:27:10 -0400

Hi all,

My objective was to make sure I understood well the issues (including the
view opposing the concensus) and possibly to swing them and any lurkers to
the concensus declaration:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02955.html

I had read that before I posted to this mailing list, but I saw some
protest (maybe that was only relative to the possibility of using TLS+NDN
handshake), so I wanted to add my belated vote/input to the concensus. And
I had not read someone make the point of the impossibility of forcing
global proxy code upgrades for each new Upgrade
flavor-of-the-month (but I only read roughly about 50-100 posts in the
archives).

Apologies but from the perspective of an outsider, I wasn't clear that all
of the community had consented to the wisdom and I am hoping to sway many
of the rest of them, so that the concensus is not oppression (51% forcing
their will on 49%).  I have no idea what percentage was still on the
fence, because lurkers aren't counted.

Apology to berate the point.

I also was trying to understand well the opposing factors that were
driving this need to push the bounds.  I have sent some comments to the
list today in another thread, which may illuminate for me some the forces
against WebSocket (if my logic is correct).  I hope some will comment on
those.

Frankly from reading the spec, I didn't get a good sense of the issues
faced due to proxies.  The spec gives me no realistic way to evaluate the
likelihood of success of this architecture.  I came to the discussion list
from Wikipedia after reading as much as I could via Google, to try to get
a deeper understanding of the issues.  I really think a good summary of
the issues is not easy to extract.  So I have written down some thoughts
and sent them to the list.  Again I hope that was helpful.  Apologies if
not.

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:12:47 -0700

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02955.html

That "declaration of consensus" was premature.  The working group has
not reached consensus on that point.

Adam

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:35:16 +0100

>From the hybi IETF meeting minutes:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/hybi.txt 

"WG Chair declared that there was consensus about HTTP compliance.  The Web socket protocol will be HTTP compliant until the Upgrade exchange is completed.  The focus is on leveraging existing HTTP based infrastructure."

Consensus only has to be rough majority, not absolute.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adam Barth
Sent: 15 August 2010 19:13
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Shelby Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> My objective was to make sure I understood well the issues (including 
> the view opposing the concensus) and possibly to swing them and any 
> lurkers to the concensus declaration:
>

That "declaration of consensus" was premature.  The working group has not reached consensus on that point.

Adam

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:51:37 -0700

Please read thread rooted at
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02955.html>.
Just because someone declares consensus at face-to-face meeting does
not mean that the working group has, in fact, reached consensus.

Adam

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:07:07 +0200

On 15.08.2010 20:51, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...

That is true, but the message you cite says:

> Ticket #1 in the tracker issues:
>
> Based on the charter's clear text about the WG defining a mechanism between existing HTTP entities
> with as much compatibility as possible, and based on rough consensus on the mailing list:
>
>     - HTTP (typically on ports 80 and/or 443) the WebSocket protocol will be HTTP compliant until Upgrade
>     exchange is completed
>     - The WG's focus is on leveraging existing HTTP-based infrastructure, although a future rechartering could
>     investigate other alternatives.
>
> Joe Hildebrand and Salvatore Loreto
> as chairs

I'm aware of the related discussion of not using an HTTP-like handshake 
at all (which depends on TLS AFAIU), but it appears we *did* have rough 
consensus that "if it looks like HTTP, it needs to be HTTP".

Best regards, Julian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:37:22 -0700

Hi Adam,
>not reached consensus on that point.

As a datapoint, the WG Chairs asked me to log the TLS/NPN issue in 
the tracker as a future feature enhancement.

The WG Chairs posted a clarification about the declaration of consensus [1].

I'll comment on objections in general terms.  It is appropriate to 
object to a decision of the WG Chairs.  If anyone has such an 
objection, please email the objection to the HyBi WG Chairs [2].

The WG Chairs can provide an explanation about a decision if the 
matter is discussed informally.  If there is a formal objection, it 
is up to the person objecting to argue why the decision of the WG 
Chairs was incorrect.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03087.html
2. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/hybi/

---

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:48:53 +1000

On 15 August 2010 22:27, Shelby Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Apologies but from the perspective of an outsider,

You've read the list, you've posted some feedback.... you are no
longer an outsider!  Welcome to the process and have a nice day.

cheers