Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote:

> On 09/02/2010 02:37 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>
>> +1. Adam, I share your concerns about versions on the web, but the
>> reality is there is no other way right now. Suggestions welcome as to
>> alternatives.
>>
>
> Couldn't web applications use different subprotocols for different
> versions of the web socket protocol.
> That wouldn't be the nicest solution, but could work
> well enough while we're trying to get some stable protocol.
>
>
> -Olli
>
>
> (I haven't read properly the current draft, but the framing looks too
>  complicated. I'll send comments once I've reviewed the draft properly.)
>
>
>
>
Subprotocols are intended to be an application level indication, and IMO
should affect base framing. This seems to be conflating issues.

Also, in addition to reviewing the draft, I would ask that you try to review
the comments that led up the draft being what it is, otherwise we are likely
to just revisit old discussions.

>
>
>
>> On Sep 1, 2010 4:27 PM, "John Tamplin" <jat@google.com
>> <mailto:jat@google.com>> wrote:
>>  > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com
>> <mailto:gregw@webtide.com>> wrote:
>>  >> my proposal was not to add versioning to the protocol - as I know some
>>  >> think it is an anti pattern.
>>  >>
>>  >> I just want to be able to implement the next draft without breaking
>>  >> all my users that have been working on the last draft.   So my
>>  >> proposal is only for a draft version to be added by implementers as
>>  >> non-standard convenience at this time. The lack of a draft version can
>>  >> be taken to mean the final stable version.
>>  >>
>>  >> How else do you expect servers to track the drafts and deal with the
>>  >> various browser implementations out there?
>>  >
>>  > The problem is that the framing of v75, v76, v00, and v01 are
>>  > incompatible. If you want to write a server that interoperates with
>>  > browsers implementing these drafts (I know at least v75 and v76 are in
>>  > the wild), then you have to rely on heuristics to figure out which one
>>  > you are talking to. Even if there isn't a version in the 1.0 spec,
>>  > any attempt to get real-world data while the spec is changing means
>>  > you either have a version number or you heuristically determine one --
>>  > the latter is obviously more prone to error.
>>  >
>>  > I would suggest adding Sec-WebSocket-Draft: 01 to implementations of
>>  > this draft, and that header will only be present before the spec is
>>  > finalized.
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  > John A. Tamplin
>>  > Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > hybi mailing list
>>  > hybi@ietf.org <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
>>
>>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hybi mailing list
>> hybi@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>>
>
>