Hi,
tldr;
CALL FOR INTEREST: Is there interest in advancing the WAMP spec into a proper IETF RFC, ultimately with the goal of making WAMP an IETF Proposed Standard?
Below: a long, bottom-up and important (my view) post for the WAMP community/implementors.
Any kind of feedback is highly appreciated!
Cheers,
/Tobias
=== History and relation of WAMP to WebSocket
WAMP has been an officially registered WebSocket subprotocol since 2012
http://www.iana.org/assignments/websocket/websocket.xml#subprotocol-nameIn fact, it was the 3rd registered subprotocol.
Nowerdays, WAMP can run over transports different from WebSocket as well, but WAMP-over-WebSocket continues to be the most important - for the very reasons we originally created WAMP in the WebSocket context:
1) runs natively right into the browser,
2) works in restricted networks and
3) one transport for all - frontends (browsers, mobile, ..), devices (IoT) _and_ backends
So our (WAMP) relation to the WebSocket technology and community is important and continues to be.
We (in this case, Tavendo) put a bet on WebSocket very early, and invested a large amount of time and resources, during the time when WebSocket was still under development by actively participating and by providing the semi-standard WebSocket implementation testsuite (
http://autobahn.ws/testsuite) nowerdays used by almost all implementors. And we will continue this.
=== The WebSocket Working Group and it's announced closing
WebSocket was developed by the IETF in a working group: "BiDirectional
or Server-Initiated HTTP (hybi)" -
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/hybi/documents/The WebSocket base protocol is now "done" (RFC6455), and since 2 days ago, the WebSocket Compression Extension is now also a IETF Proposed Standard:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/hRIf0JoYyzQ9CdjJ1OPOfQfjnUcBarry, the IETF Area Director responsible for the Hybi WG now announced the planned shutdown of the WG:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/s10nJG5EFshgh56AqTaMhiPntHkThe WG's charter has this to say
"The working group will also serve as a discussion venue for
subprotocols. However, no subprotocol is currently chartered as a
deliverable, and the WG must be rechartered to work on any
subprotocols."
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/hybi/charter/If we want to make WAMP into an RFC, the Hybi WG would be (in my view) the right place.
But I guess we then need to stand up now, let the WG's Chairs and Director know that there _is_ interest, and probably ask to change the WG charter.
=== An WAMP RFC
Making WAMP into a proper RFC will be a _lot_ of work.
The WAMP Basic Profile is pretty stable, and on the pro side, we have lots of independent implementations on the street with proven interoperability.
However, make no mistake: an IETF working group can spiral into extended, controversial and heated discussions;) I have only participated in WebSocket development, but it was intense. But I guess that's a good thing on the other hand.
Plus: we already have a spec. and we already had lot's of discussions. It "just" needs to be reworked into an IETF RFC.
While I wrote the original spec, a lot of input from various implementors and from the community has been merged into the spec over the time.
WAMP would never reached the current state without the combined community efforts.
So if we do that, I definitely can't do that alone .. it's too much work, and taking WAMP through the IETF process can only work IMO when we do that as a community.
=== Why?
"WAMP is an open standard WebSocket subprotocol ..."
open, for sure. the spec is available free and under CC for anyone to use and implement.
standard? we have a spec, and we have proven interop, but we don't have a "proper", _formal_ standard spec
An IETF RFC and ultimately IETF Proposed Standard would provide that.
Having a formal standard for WAMP is IMO desirable: it provides a common, neutral, reliable foundation for implementors and users. It provides long-term viability.
And some of our "competition" has that.
E.g. MQTT (
http://mqtt.org/) is a OASIS Standard since Nov. 2014. AMQP is also an OASIS Standard.
=== Why the IETF?
The IETF has a mission I totally subscribe to:
https://www.ietf.org/about/mission.htmlIn particular:
"Rough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the combined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-world experience in implementing and deploying our specifications."
If you want to increase my blood pressure: take me to a committee like group that mostly does paper work and endless philosophical discussions;) With the end result being a big, useless mess.
========= END