Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt

[Takeshi Yoshino <[e-mail]>]

+1

Aligning implementation is desirable but not realistic for real world
experiment. Welcoming older implementation users to experiment, we can get
more participant and more feedback on WebSocket. People who doesn't care
protocol detail but interested in WebSocket's basic features and API want
not to be blocked by protocol level change, I think.

We implemented some heuristics that look for some -76 (== -00) specific
header in handshake request. Now implementors have no other choice than
using frame inspection to tell -00 and -01 apart as Greg mentioned. At least
in draft stage where we'll publish number of drafts with drastic change as
milestones every time we get consensus on some topic, we should have some
way to tell the version which the client is using explicitly rather than
requiring implementor to adopt such heuristics.

Takeshi


On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 09:22, Gabriel Montenegro <[e-mail]>wrote:

> +1. I’m all for a version as part of the protocol itself, but recognize
> that the discussion right now is limited to a versioning field only during
> draft stage.
>
>
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
> *Ian Fette (????????)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:38 PM
> *To:* John Tamplin
> *Cc:* hybi
> *Subject:* Re: [hybi] I-D
> Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt
>
>
>
> +1. Adam, I share your concerns about versions on the web, but the reality
> is there is no other way right now. Suggestions welcome as to alternatives.
>
> On Sep 1, 2010 4:27 PM, "John Tamplin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> my proposal was not to add versioning to the protocol - as I know some
> >> think it is an anti pattern.
> >>
> >> I just want to be able to implement the next draft without breaking
> >> all my users that have been working on the last draft.   So my
> >> proposal is only for a draft version to be added by implementers as
> >> non-standard convenience at this time. The lack of a draft version can
> >> be taken to mean the final stable version.
> >>
> >> How else do you expect servers to track the drafts and deal with the
> >> various browser implementations out there?
> >
> > The problem is that the framing of v75, v76, v00, and v01 are
> > incompatible. If you want to write a server that interoperates with
> > browsers implementing these drafts (I know at least v75 and v76 are in
> > the wild), then you have to rely on heuristics to figure out which one
> > you are talking to. Even if there isn't a version in the 1.0 spec,
> > any attempt to get real-world data while the spec is changing means
> > you either have a version number or you heuristically determine one --
> > the latter is obviously more prone to error.
> >
> > I would suggest adding Sec-WebSocket-Draft: 01 to implementations of
> > this draft, and that header will only be present before the spec is
> > finalized.
> >
> > --
> > John A. Tamplin
> > Software Engineer (GWT), Google
> > _______________________________________________
> > hybi mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>