Re: [hybi] HyBi WG update

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.com>
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 0C3C43A6B0E for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 jUFCjMVwX2IN for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19DF93A68F0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so4351332fxm.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.110.67 with SMTP id m3mr1090985fap.24.1279755141302; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.112.129 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007212239500.7242@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
References: <4C1F3F93.2020805@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007210706040.7242@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A3730C2BF04516@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007212239500.7242@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:32:21 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimt6AmJmlRKYMq0YWSJbwy34_cxNfv1pAQaaEx6@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c9246e98c9c8048bee361a
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] HyBi WG update
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, 21 Jul 2010 23:32:07 -0000

On 22 July 2010 08:44, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> > You don't need implementers implementing from the latest revision of the
> > draft.
> >
> > You need implementers implementing from a _considered_ version of the
> > draft, and a fixed referencable point at that.
>
> Sure, but given that implementers are going to implement the spec
> regardless, I'd much rather they implemented the latest version, with all
> the bugs removed, rather than a version that we _know_ is buggy.
>

How can anybody implement a constantly moving target into which discussed
speculative ideas are added?

Regardless - I think you are confusing two concerns.    Discussions about
how to design the websocket protocol are free to occur anywhere in any forum
what so ever.

However, discussions about the IETF draft protocol specification document
should either occur on the IETF list or be summarized on the list.
Changes to the draft should be discussed on list and peer reviewed before
they are put into the next version of the draft.   When acting as an IETF
editor, you should be acting as a tech writer and not as a tech designer.