Re: [hybi] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6455 (3473)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

On 1 February 2013 23:27, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Is this "host and port" or "IP and port" ?  That too is unclear.  If
> I'm sharding a.example.com and b.example.com and they are served on
> the same VIP, is the expectation that wss://a.example.com/ and
> wss://b.example.com/ can't have concurrent connection attempts?

On Feb 4, 2013 3:20 AM, "Adam Rice" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I was assuming that in the first sentence the text "connection to the
> remote host (IP address) ... even if the remote host is known by another
> name" made the interpretation of "IP address" unambiguous.
>
> But section 4.1 says that /host/ is defined in section 3, and section 3
> actually defines /host/ as "host = <host, defined in [RFC3986], Section
> 3.2.2>", ie. the host portion of the URI.
>
> So now I don't know.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> That is approximately where my reasoning lead. I think that the *safe*
> option is to have one connection per name.
>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Salvatore Loreto
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> the original idea was to serialize the tentative to connect to the same IP
> address (especially in the case several /host/ names share the same IP
> address); IMO it becomes clear if you read the second paragraph of the
> bullet #2 and the NOTE.

OK... so how do you folks propose that your ADs resolve this errata report?

The options are as follows:

1. It's just wrong, and we should mark it "Rejected".  (This doesn't
seem like where you're going.)

2. It's absolutely correct as it is, and we should mark it "Verified".
 (It doesn't seem like it's this either.)

3. It's essentially correct, but needs some editing.  You can provide
the edits and we can edit it and then mark it "Verified".

4. It's true that there's a problem, but the resolution is beyond the
scope of an erratum.  We can either leave it as it is or edit it (to
tweak the proposed resolution and/or to explain the difficulty in
resolving it), and then mark it "Held for Document Update".

Barry, Applications AD