IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 21 June 2011 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1946421F858B for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.397, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljMcM4Jepsqs for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3896A21F858A for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2011 09:31:15 -0000
Received: from p508FDB5A.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [80.143.219.90] by mail.gmx.net (mp059) with SMTP; 21 Jun 2011 11:31:15 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX185cqF3XjA52p7PMFzaZyg6C1Y2Q/poq17KSsCxgK ofLfrGJtvnKeUv
Message-ID: <4E0064D9.8050707@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:31:05 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
References: <20110613233745.27187.94588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BANLkTinWuzj3V12eerjX0f13yYNdynTOjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E004D3D.3020305@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BANLkTi=T2YLpH4U=qduv_qFZVO3EyLPAUw@mail.gmail.com> <4E00569E.4030400@ericsson.com> <BANLkTikm33-EQDaRwJM8yJ34QgmrxN7FgQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikm33-EQDaRwJM8yJ34QgmrxN7FgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:31:18 -0000

On 2011-06-21 11:04, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> ...
> So, having a header Sec-WebSocket-Version would make life easier for
> developers, right. But this is still a hack. I've never seen a
> protocol specification upgrading a "version" field in the protocol
> messages for each new draft revision. Just never. The protocol version
> should be specified in the final RFC, not before.
> ...

We did that for the Atom format.

> ...
> The specification should be written in a way that it becomes a RFC as
> best as possible, rather than trying to satisfy impatient developers
> during the spec creation process.
> ...

I do not disagree with that.

Implementing a draft is an experiment; an important one.

But once we go to RFC the protocol version number should be bumped to 
something sane...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email