Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-11.txt

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Tue, 23 August 2011 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <tyoshino@google.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 33DD321F8C4C for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.856
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.856 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id asy66WU5jHnD for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D87521F8C4B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.1]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p7NJgFVJ015843 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:42:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1314128536; bh=MDk0XBeHzZq9SZyGeHnAsiMG1kQ=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=L/YUM6PLLH3xeqGKI/U7mBPyOZaGMUI0W5DiRZkr2d05xmH/sQITDfgRvD47FI+cb Lkvf1CSybCdq4Lm+VTqPw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=F3BA1vDProVvlNwXGYG0+f8jxNaR/vavsYxrUQf2S2XNIfNx6Eq5/w+6Me8uziQGX Rh1dpuOyU0xm4wLbals2A==
Received: from ywo7 (ywo7.prod.google.com [10.192.15.7]) by hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p7NJgDia006373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:42:14 -0700
Received: by ywo7 with SMTP id 7so643376ywo.25 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=qualZseZjg8BDSnAh3+7U/X5gIjkiUX59wnXS1Yj1BQ=; b=U06amODdybbXjKNrkM2ggllcJOCSshIQ9w9Rm8I6nf0sXPK1s82kQPSJOzvOaYFeEK zo1ZqX8VTnJRX7IjI0XQ==
Received: by 10.91.158.16 with SMTP id k16mr4135109ago.82.1314128533359; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.91.158.16 with SMTP id k16mr4135102ago.82.1314128533141; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.91.32.2 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E538213.7020207@isode.com>
References: <20110823102713.23958.79728.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E538213.7020207@isode.com>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:41:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJaDcOEf0n59PSqfWJcEpLBKBGssX13FNViCUBFc2vxMXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001485f94c626836e404ab316416"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-11.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, 23 Aug 2011 19:41:09 -0000

Hi Alexey,

I have some questions about section 5.2.2. and 5.3.

----

implied WSP rule -> implied LWS rule ?

----

Are
Sec-WebSocket-Protocol-Client, Sec-WebSocket-Version-Client,
Sec-WebSocket-Protocol-Server, Sec-WebSocket-Version-Server
just names of ABNF rules?

i.e. Sec-WebSocket-Protocol-Client is the grammar for the right hand side of
the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header in client handshake?

----

It seems header name and colon are missing from rules. e.g.

Sec-WebSocket-Accept     = base64-value

The left hand side was accept-value in -10 and the line seemed to be
defining the grammar of the right hand side of the Sec-WebSocket-Accept
data. So, just base64-value was fine. But now, maybe you've tried to give
grammar for full header line as RFC 2616 does and follow its style like
       Accept         = "Accept" ":"
                        #( media-range [ accept-params ] )
so, this should be

Sec-WebSocket-Accept     = "Sec-WebSocket-Accept" ":" base64-value

----

This ABNF doesn't cover 1, 2, ... 99
            version = "0" | ("1" DIGIT DIGIT) | ("2" DIGIT DIGIT)
                       ; 0-255

----

Maybe "1#" here is typo.
Sec-WebSocket-Version-Server = 1#version

----

Thanks,