Re: [hybi] consensus call: websocketprotocol baseline

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 12 May 2010 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 9DC523A6AF5 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 00:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.902
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 dbZlOyswWo1r for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 00:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.251.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 711A83A6C9F for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2010 00:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.158]) by scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id o4C74oaC002160 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2010 16:04:50 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 29da_4e7e_a81e7dd4_5d94_11df_8150_001d096c566a; Wed, 12 May 2010 16:04:50 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:45760) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S1393574> for <hybi@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Wed, 12 May 2010 16:04:49 +0900
Message-ID: <4BEA5306.20903@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:04:38 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091214 Eudora/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
References: <4BE41BCB.7010707@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BE41BCB.7010707@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] consensus call: websocketprotocol baseline
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: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:05:17 -0000

I'm fine with adopting either draft. It's much more important to adopt a 
draft as a baseline quickly and then work on it than to make a big deal 
out of which draft to adopt as a baseline.

Also, while on controversial issue, it is very important that the chairs 
assess consensus and direct the editor, I think we shouldn't take this 
too far and put up every little wording issue for a WG consensus call.

Also, I would personally be absolutely fine with the/an editor to put 
some textual proposals into a new draft without necessarily checking all 
the details beforehand with the WG, if such new text is editorial only 
or if it is properly marked in the draft (e.g. with NEW PROPOSAL or 
ISSUE or whatever). I have seen quite a few WGs where that worked out 
fine. Of course, I leave it to the chairs how to handle this.


Regards,   Martin.

On 2010/05/07 22:55, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
> During the last IETF 77 the wg decided to use the version 75th to be
> adopted as official wg item.
> That was due to the fact all the already shipped implementation (e.g.
> chrome, kaazing, jetty)
> are currently based on the 75th version of the draft.
> The idea was to start with a -00 version that matches what people
> shipped and then discuss what to put in -01 version.
> Another reason to adopt 75th version, was that there were no official
> 76th version at the time.
> ( Ian yesterday submitted to the IETF the 76th version of the draft:
> _http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76.txt_ )
> During the last weeks there as been a lot of discussion about 75th vs 76th,
> and it seems that people do not think that breaking changes are a big
> problem at this stage.
> So as chairs we want to check the consensus for which version (75th or
> 76th) adopt as baseline of
> official HyBi wg item: draft-ietf-websocketprotocol-00.
>
> The consensus call will run until May 14th, 2010.
>
> Then we will ask Ian Hixie to submit the version that has received the
> consensus has wg item.
>
>
> best regards
> /Sal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp