Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

Joel Martin <> Sun, 04 September 2011 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D209321F85F2; Sun, 4 Sep 2011 13:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r+hI0bJHZmAN; Sun, 4 Sep 2011 13:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA2F21F8581; Sun, 4 Sep 2011 13:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so3307565fxe.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Hw931ffTMBmGAJwepwgEGHiS6UT7j7ebPsd6w9kgjbo=; b=hbq9jo1x2hQCoBlOPdzcd6w80QqvlgZkqwc01wRidjCBC4yq1ITOZBHwV+l8tVgamx ngljpEgw6T6mMKew105hvY/GvZVUFspxVV4AscXfTMLLV4C4K3zEAAPxg1mTrW9emZRD 2/De8qlD8dy4X7ojbRPC2UCYNz0IDgrpm2M9M=
Received: by with SMTP id g11mr5946307fah.14.1315169570126; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 4 Sep 2011 13:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Joel Martin <>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 15:52:30 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: X_xP7j5q051yCB_c-4kXIeoc9eA
Message-ID: <>
To: Sylvain Hellegouarch <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0eea80bfbd304ac23c73b
Cc:, "Roy T. Fielding" <>, Server-Initiated HTTP <>,
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 20:51:09 -0000

On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch <> wrote:

>  +1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty
>> well
> Yet it never was worded that way when this WG started debating mainly WS.
> In fact, I don't recall any other protocol being discussed on this board so
> I disagree with the term "requirement" in this very case.
My point is that Willy's paragraph is a concise summary the current (and
original) requirements document for WebSockets and the HyBi charter too for
that matter:

Original WebSocket requirements doc:
Current WebSocket requirements doc:<>

Original WebSocket charter:
Current WebSocket charter:

IMO, the current protocol design fits quite well with the HyBi charter and
WebSocket requirements. One could argue that the charter and requirements
document are flawed, but given the starting point, the current result has
almost fulfilled the original vision (the remaining item is wide adoption,
but that seems very likely assuming the WG work isn't derailed in the


Joel Martin