IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Proposed Charter for HyBi WG (rev.3)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 30 October 2009 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 6EAF63A6AAE for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 z2jK6erwirnm for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D48A3A696E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Beta0/8.14.4.Beta0) with ESMTP id n9UJCPrZ018173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1256929953; x=1257016353; bh=w2RR7qdrESSKnF/Y+eWZaeS9NJ+wkMHv2gT28I5sCTY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=eGpay6ViSZrrmla0EZhY1yGz38Q3vplqtzOAgoc2nzUOqqs8H1MwPpUe8Kle7pPaz ut6vPrZD5fFk5x5ZbXTE8lY78dWtFzwjGMbZZ11gc2k0Jq/g9ol285kjvqRyMz9Q3n I+8jaaLi7IWA/QXC8MbSYBW4ExiBuRp4WiyvuuWw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=Wz+K9/xRjkEcOmbksB5TquH3zrSKXbK+b/9U6kNcSmjq9LYNpIZ0yVXcyjabBzhVR /LURfhwSB01QBITgVRn5xbdXv6iQK654SR1IyXyeC7KVUklNcL0rktEVDcEx5vp3eVp OM1j5lFGykWM+lFAasrouULbRaJaxDZY+IQSUsI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20091030120030.043cff78@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:11:21 -0700
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4AEABDBF.80705@ericsson.com>
References: <4AE966CA.9090907@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910300047310.25608@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AEABDBF.80705@ericsson.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Proposed Charter for HyBi WG (rev.3)
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: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:12:30 -0000

Hi Sal,
At 03:19 30-10-2009, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>    In particular, the working group will liaison with:
>    - the W3C WebApps working group around the requirements to 
> support      the WebSocket API;    - the WHATWG around the 
> WebSockets protocol    if agreed by both parties, the HyBi working 
> group may take on prime    responsibility on the specification of 
> the WebSockets protocol.

If there is any disagreement between W3C WebApps and WHATWG, it may 
turn into a complicated situation for the proposed Working Group.  Is 
the HyBi work (the I-Ds) about the protocol or the API?

>one question: how IETF can become aware if WHATWG agrees or not?

I suggest that you talk to Lisa about that.

Regards,
-sm

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status