Re: [hybi] Proposal: HTTP upgrade process

["Shelby Moore" <[e-mail]>]

[snip]

> So in order to move the work forward I would invite people to send out
> text (in an adhoc thread) proposing an handshake that address all the
> concerns raised from
> different people (in the same way is happening for the frame issue).

Process question follows.

I understand you are referring to moving forward on the handshake for WS
on HTTP port 80.  I understand that can be an orthogonal process to
decisions about whether we should use HTTP port 80 for WS.

I have an unanswered question/challenge about whether we can use HTTP port
80 for WS reliably:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03299.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03303.html

What is the standard process to follow? Is the standard or amicable
procedure to assume that if no one replies a challenge, then the challenge
does not deserve merit, or to assume it was correct on merits? Or is the
interpretation an individual decision and ambigious for the group
decision?

I intuitively understand that a WG is a concensus building process, so am
I correct to assume that if no one replies to a challenge, then it means
you've been effectively told that your ideas are not worthy?

Thanks in advance for the clarification on process.