Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

All,

I know this issues has been somewhat sidetracked by the
discussion about TLS.

However, this particular requirements is conditional for only when
sharing a port with HTTP, so I think it valuable to continue to
try to finalize this requirement.

Currently there is no clear consensus either way, with perhaps
a few more voices against compliance is not required.

For firstly, I'd like to encourage all list lurkers to
speak up and help sway the debate one way or the other.

Also, in an attempt to move the conversation on, I'd like
flip the question around and ask if somebody can clearly
state what is the down side of adopting HTTP compliance
other than it might force a breaking change in the
-76 draft.   Is there some other requirement that can only
be achieved by breaking compliance?


regards








On 12/05/10 12:37, hybi issue tracker wrote:
> #1: HTTP Compliance
> -------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
>  Reporter:  salvatore.loreto@…             |       Owner:     
>      Type:  defect                         |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  major                          |   Milestone:     
> Component:  websocket-requirements         |     Version:     
>  Severity:  -                              |    Keywords:     
> -------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
>  REQ.7 currently states:
> 
>       When sharing host and "well known" port with HTTP, the
>       WebSocket protocol MUST be HTTP compatible until both ends have
>       established the WebSocket protocol.
> 
>  at the Anaheim meeting there was some consensus to change this to "HTTP
>  compliant".
>  However there is a lot of misunderstanding about what compliance to HTTP
>  means and implies.
>  The Requirement draft should clarify it, as it may have non trivial impact
>  on the protocol design.
>