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

[Salvatore Loreto <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Adam on option 3
and also on the fact that we should not (and we are not allowed to)
change the meaning of the current text

Salvatore

-- 
Salvatore Loreto, PhD
www.sloreto.com


On 2/15/13 12:35 PM, Adam Rice wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 00:56, Barry Leiba <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     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".
>
> I would like to take option 3. I would like to propose the following 
> text to clarify the intent of RFC6455 while preserving the meaning:
>
>    2.  If the client already has a WebSocket connection to the same IP
>        address and port pair, even if the remote host is known by another
>        name, the client MUST wait until that connection has been 
> established
>        or for that connection to have failed.  There MUST be no more than
>        one connection in a CONNECTING state.  If multiple connections 
> to the
>        same IP address and port pair are attempted simultaneously, the
>        client MUST serialize them so that there is no more than one
>        connection at a time running through the following steps.
>
> The following paragraph already indicates what must be done in the 
> case where the IP address cannot be determined, so this change should 
> not create any difficulties in the case where the connection 
> is tunnelled via an HTTP(S) or SOCKS5 proxy.
>
> I think the issue that this section creates problems for WebSocket 
> proxies and non-browser clients cannot be handled without changing the 
> meaning of the text, and so I would like to deal with that separately.
>
> Thank you,
> Adam Rice
>
>