IETF Logo Mail Archive

[hybi] Websockets sub-protocol registry

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 11 March 2016 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 5702912D947 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:42:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QXYiiC7L9gfe for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:42:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67BA112D945 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:42:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id c203so89755462oia.2 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:42:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ME/79eulqO+hs/YSXnzxyLd6DKoHj1vxeG2B++sdvy0=; b=h6ALr2RPOKch8Xyxy3OI04apcDtBU7cHgadduxTBs5A+2PVQD99Enkt7g0NtwwEwOR /7J7ig9ll1N+FY5Y+YGLPT6xVCs/ZfPXrPCdd5+rRHuyrutHGvNZCLYRKs+mdtdPnGSI /cEoGBVFwIZXMeZaQwRgVgS8pFfMKxsTwxPplOb9KOsbsJ7jyOnX3+MgQTQVpv60vCB9 FKvfuq6oUqZhRyuguKf1lZwNUl7vN1tZFUQGzlWuL66BH4cIZNw2XuHdsebXPEucrHyT L47CAEQnfGN9/9Q5L8EwdnUKAHkCsQdJ2Z7NrqQfv5wrKUFFZrdZ+uks8Yg3Xaa4m5YZ ZulQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ME/79eulqO+hs/YSXnzxyLd6DKoHj1vxeG2B++sdvy0=; b=JykSqNmj7Ej9zTYcbeRPMCMrj+apeXtcIixXGiVNcaA1Nyqi1f8igyCryDz/LEYdGT z970r4nryux6+bfZKp5pyi04xh8ReJ8F6q9zQKf+s+P90yVH4lPBDWkDZp2ltgVW1KHR dAeWIpdUM/geIg4Li78BEWt6QSfTJTcZZAKqzO/f+zGFHRxUVkQ2y1G3N+75avI+9BXV va6mipG9xMBAOcldc+kj1viyOkj2Hy6wOpVdmv9KZbAlPfk8KfT99uXdlroyRwUQ4CXc UJps8uIiPi1C1Txiw9URrkWrCBn1+9ZOHuIcK8sNWwI1Zq+bti/wXTVp/1WjkIVQ9l58 i5Ng==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIcp80wm4nOIAj5Ri8+F/PhbISmgL6kVqdM8/vFU7L+3h5s3NqnXKR8lWnDJg0pQXEFvFS86OnP/Kz73w==
X-Received: by 10.202.169.151 with SMTP id s145mr5357670oie.35.1457714557844; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:42:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.51.6 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:42:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:42:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDZQ_dPM76HaAKwvsRaOhdyvbQd+YLOCTR9piBYO2Kt+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cad5067824b052dc89e78"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/Ax-UqERaQ1P8KDzroBTQYhocjt0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:33:46 -0700
Subject: [hybi] Websockets sub-protocol registry
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:42:40 -0000

Howdy,

RTCWEB re-uses the websockets sub-protocol registry for identifying
sub-protocols using its data channels.  During discussion on the list, we
realized that the method by which these are compared is not specified and
that it is therefore not clear whether IANA could or should register two
values which differed only in case.

Would anyone object to specifying that IANA should not register two values
that differed only in case?  Is there a specification which determines
whether the match is case-sensitive or case-insensitive that we missed?

regards,

Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email