IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] what's next

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 06 September 2011 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 79EE421F8BAD for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 10:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 V42VrBOqW4W2 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 10:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E216921F8BA7 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 10:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-178.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.178]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D90B4418BB; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:37:21 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E6659A2.5040402@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:34:26 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
References: <20110831184207.1514.64093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E5E824A.3020101@stpeter.im> <4E5E9440.5070803@gmx.de> <CALiegfkR87Gx-tBJC1hDe8nKHD_Y6KvBM3fOKRj59tzTDHmErg@mail.gmail.com> <4E60C4FA.8070109@isode.com> <CALiegfm7fJVy8BLxSotT6mr_8uZ5+t-huKhKQEt5NcKpZx=xrg@mail.gmail.com> <4E60C7EE.8010201@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E60C7EE.8010201@isode.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] what's next
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, 06 Sep 2011 17:32:42 -0000

<hat type='AD'/>

On 9/2/11 6:11 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 
>> 2011/9/2 Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>:
>>  
>>
>>> I've offered to upgrade ABNF to RFC 5234-style, but our chairs and AD
>>> thought it was a bit too risky at this point. Something to do for
>>> WebSockets
>>> 1.1.
>>>   
>> Could I know why it would be too risky? It changes nothing and makes
>> implementation easier as it doesn't require the developer to check
>> "what implied *LWS is in RFC 2616". Current text forces the
>> implementator looking for "implied *LWS" concept in RFC 2616.
>>
>> Honestly I don't understand the rationale to keep it.
>>  
>>
> Experience shows that it is too easy to introduce an error in a rush.
> I've done such conversions before. I've also made mistake in a rush. So
> I have some sympathy to the argument made.

Yes, the concern is that we might introduce bugs at the last minute.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email