Re: [hybi] Fwd: Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Thu, 21 July 2011 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73ED01F0C38 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.864
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.864 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTkJ1Zp2XoiE for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDE21F0C36 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p6L3iLcL019986 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:44:21 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1311219862; bh=IJyr1cbgb2rJxOgMw8gfAKYtM3A=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=Fn97QF9vW7PPlf7FBKZ4qknoiJH/dlkY9XgGJ1P6QEjxdFAkGdcTped5fWw0Z4Q0U rrcGMhi1acoHc8tP5ggIA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=HIIHfAt8jBC9ELgS3oumsVMCQxlV4P+YBHrkJhom/YMuFbPz83QhPBQpriO4GfNbu Dn6fwjlQGEDmh0pDv0zqg==
Received: from yic13 (yic13.prod.google.com [10.243.65.141]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p6L3ha4s026320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:44:20 -0700
Received: by yic13 with SMTP id 13so631229yic.27 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=tAxdXvT8u4ulmMqPGND7H+fuzu8PzTpejdoL3n9Qgmk=; b=VGBL/pU8QcbRlFoIX4HNnMQIrpZomdhcp6KxQFcFSItGcc2gJIpvb4sDCu9qry5+SY T0KbA/glykyBjUNzBSOQ==
Received: by 10.151.88.21 with SMTP id q21mr93866ybl.173.1311219860106; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.49.7 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F040D2C304E@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <4E2792EB.2070408@stpeter.im> <CABLsOLCy3xAtXavSGc1mJA18Yhh7gZoaVX9Rg07Dyka1sNx0Tw@mail.gmail.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F040D2C304E@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:44:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CABLsOLCUHbW2cfUZUdfugSrMPzRbUO9YK0r77Uq_UNFp0jcJEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "rbarnes@bbn.com" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Fwd: Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:44:26 -0000

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Thomson, Martin
<Martin.Thomson@commscope.com> wrote:
> To those providing responses to review comments like this, consider for a moment that perhaps the draft
> does not - and should - provide the answer.

There was discussion about that to, and the majority opinion (not
mine) was that rationale did not belong in the spec.  If warranted, a
separate rationale document could be written.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google