Re: [hybi] Websockets sub-protocol registry

Ted Hardie <> Mon, 14 March 2016 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986A412DB74 for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 68h4YDEv-SbG for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2311312DBAD for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d205so135241789oia.0 for <>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LnHd4XJeTUNRWcOtxTm/Auqq5o0/aqGLdWEUoeiHSsQ=; b=Rpekcu1/xsBl1e3hc4fxlm93NsDVgUyIR2IdwUyv5sCnOuGh1N08R0PgDl/w5JGL56 3OcQSponKsksTAP033D2aQqvkUOp/md5jOOwAp2CH1/UwRaiDmAjOkWA/oEtTLEWWAyP UGsYGFi+4tb4VJg79YWaYzzkViMQdrW+4Ha5SCr8mLSvcVBE88beC6T6pqteWYvj1Xso nrb9WjgviZSzhtbSzu7MbR2IMC2LMrGqXqG9LzvpFssD7R0+Yq1PdvoPUhOOMX2Be2u0 879RyE4AC6VvqP/zyt338qLplta3NGXTszq2dIG5kmnoJSg13UVJtnonD92EQMDW9Cw5 SNFQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LnHd4XJeTUNRWcOtxTm/Auqq5o0/aqGLdWEUoeiHSsQ=; b=aZq5ZrGsSzX6p3G54Mw5SExY41tC9hkPSde5EQN0QkBaDLrkMybHgTEs13IpZRHOs0 aYq5c9kijvl8rrfApn4Gn57kRmc6B0f7bn6+kXGkzHh0/e6odj9e5MDJizxtQC9W+lQA H7tlH3u18P84bGDqMkE6t3qKikz3FFdLkM5P66Hc3dXLVAY2Gz4sRpsU3Nh9gLeDovsa y/cZkIa7/ommJqssuZVxtupHnZiJZTLaJrLG5kaGlKRTrZoGjzybcG2FVrgVAvmId1Y7 EVSJXvsZeY9L1FViow9w/FRUtaQSGah7ntow97HRQHNp4lZzX1yYjliXS/BZN8Ik/AuT Ir/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL+M8nS14lmxz+XteZ1JOP0g1a+jPILTIHUeehSvCPb1cTmFmnTXt7CXePn7gPWBBdAMjp6NJBMzzw9cg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s145mr12046617oie.35.1457967720506; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:01:41 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Anne van Kesteren <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cad50132ce5052e0390e1
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Websockets sub-protocol registry
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:11:04 -0000

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:
> > 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?
> Why would you assume it to be case-insensitive? Typically any kind of
> matching is case-sensitive unless otherwise specified.

We simply don't want to assume it; we'd like it to be specified, at least
in the RTCWEB case.  We're happy to specify that it be case-insensitive
match.  Based on a cursory look at libwebsockets and a few python libs, it
looks like that is the commoning match for the original usage as well.

Back to the IANA side of the question: Any objection to specifying that
IANA should not register two values that differed only in  case?  The
current instructions aren't clear on that.


Ted Hardie