IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Sun, 15 August 2010 11:08 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61133A687E for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.655, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Uot8McCnSPM for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DEC43A6819 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1) with ESMTP id o7FB8X6X025108; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:08:33 +0200
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:08:33 +0200
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: gustav trede <gustav.trede@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinT9r47qqG2s-MEpGxwGuOcST9tRTLS_TyQKf_r@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008151305200.22614@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <f7d4bb98e444b85b9bf1af6d4d9f0772.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> <20100815100717.GA27614@1wt.eu> <AANLkTimQeG32CbZG5DsGmthwH3CwqHtncs7tGCTtg0d+@mail.gmail.com> <20100815105045.GB27614@1wt.eu> <AANLkTinT9r47qqG2s-MEpGxwGuOcST9tRTLS_TyQKf_r@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Greylist: Default is to whitelist mail, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.5 (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]); Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:08:33 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:08:32 -0000

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, gustav trede wrote:

> Its not the person, its the process of how ideas get formalized into the 
> spec i was asking about. Discussions like the one going on now regarding a 
> serious problem, is perhaps something that should happen before there is a 
> magical decision to move an idea into the spec proposal ?.

This particular detail you're asking about was added to the spec before it was 
handed over to IETF to work on, so it is an artifact of the previous process 
not the current one. (And it has been argued about a lot on this list ever 
since.)

The current discussion is a lot about coming up with a (modified) way that can 
get a consensus from this group.

I don't think its very productive to dig a lot more into that, but to look 
forward and suggest what we should do to advance Websockets into a fine spec.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email