IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Tue, 14 June 2011 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.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 2AA8021F84F9 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 7bSAcJP6PgSN for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode.ducksong.com (linode.ducksong.com [64.22.125.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF8C21F849E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by linode.ducksong.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3C8B10192; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:06:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.16.226] (cpe-67-253-92-25.maine.res.rr.com [67.253.92.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linode.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4399110154; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:06:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
To: ifette@google.com
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim3PT8y3+u-99BRVb1WwzFUZyxAXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110613233745.27187.94588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BANLkTik3Lgp9H4EW1BwRj=n+OQFz6YN547A4y69SysoF7UXnzw@mail.gmail.com> <1308062227.1944.162.camel@ds9> <BANLkTim3PT8y3+u-99BRVb1WwzFUZyxAXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:06:42 -0400
Message-ID: <1308074802.1944.175.camel@ds9>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
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, 14 Jun 2011 18:06:51 -0000

On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:02 -0700, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> There was an email to the chairs pointing out that unknown values in
> reserved bits vs unknown opcode values were handled differently. The
> chairs discussed and asked me to make them both fail.
> 

I'm confused. 

In -08 an unknown RSV* mandates a MUST ignore, and an unknown opcode
also mandates a MUST ignore. That seems like a match to me.

In -09 unknown RSV* mandates a FAIL, and unknown opcode mandates an
ignore.

how does that mesh with what was done?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email