Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Tue, 21 June 2011 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
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 8B59C9E8047 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xdV2MpvZEXcP for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0A39E8046 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-c6-4e00666dfb6f
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4B.79.20773.D66600E4; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:37:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:37:48 +0200
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CA424D8 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:37:48 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B8D50EFB for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:37:48 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from n211.nomadiclab.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E51050B7D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:37:48 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4E00666C.6050007@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:37:48 +0300
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hybi@ietf.org
References: <20110613233745.27187.94588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BANLkTinWuzj3V12eerjX0f13yYNdynTOjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E004D3D.3020305@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BANLkTi=T2YLpH4U=qduv_qFZVO3EyLPAUw@mail.gmail.com> <4E00569E.4030400@ericsson.com> <BANLkTikm33-EQDaRwJM8yJ34QgmrxN7FgQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E0064D9.8050707@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E0064D9.8050707@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt
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, 21 Jun 2011 09:37:51 -0000

my comment was about keeping the Sec-WebSocket-Version header.

What number (and format) should be put there at the end, in the final 
RFC, it is a different story.

/Sal

-- 
Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com





On 6/21/11 12:31 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-06-21 11:04, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> ...
>> So, having a header Sec-WebSocket-Version would make life easier for
>> developers, right. But this is still a hack. I've never seen a
>> protocol specification upgrading a "version" field in the protocol
>> messages for each new draft revision. Just never. The protocol version
>> should be specified in the final RFC, not before.
>> ...
> We did that for the Atom format.
>
>> ...
>> The specification should be written in a way that it becomes a RFC as
>> best as possible, rather than trying to satisfy impatient developers
>> during the spec creation process.
>> ...
> I do not disagree with that.
>
> Implementing a draft is an experiment; an important one.
>
> But once we go to RFC the protocol version number should be bumped to
> something sane...
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi