Re: [hybi] Closing handshake

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 16 March 2016 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 A6B5912D596 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zQiWAviOgTe for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1050D12D569 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1458150202; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=E+hZJTwYYGUnlrSudbTA7FRBnLDtCa0gmkmshSPXd3Q=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=gQ/owD0dGwpr8J8K2tXjNxO9QoBnb10jJ5RUTWTkxhx8fsns9D4mcq6XsHOeRl/PGGGtlR oo2SRW7pIsarNALXU4v2cjqXwTtenjuSPcNVG/l5/H5AEbd7IOKdPb2GRYNaxMwLSbVCmU hXm80lSXtwCGd6XHNHaWjKPxnY7J6Wo=;
Received: from [10.242.222.162] ((unknown) [85.255.234.136]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VumbOQB25mKs@statler.isode.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:43:22 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS PIPELINING
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13D15)
In-Reply-To: <CADnb78jGT4A7QQsK4ZtKzaG9G7ExArss=ic=euq4eT0wVKsYuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:45:40 +0000
Message-Id: <3AD7C81B-ED30-45C4-82F8-9C8699DF0335@isode.com>
References: <CADnb78gG4+Gak+7X=Z5HVJUX+vWasUi7AtppVEiuV6hH1Q7W4w@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJYCqUsnTu3D7JEa0xaJS2diyvgVVcsVNeD_6xiFFTYzqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJaGGQSHtonOVhcYXOaee2iHD0i3yzs4EBHf_AetQ5LQDw@mail.gmail.com> <CADnb78j8yUSHNrfB=soRtWqNO4oaJhK-=MmmaEx7pU3Cpz_+3A@mail.gmail.com> <CACuKZqFqrbDxVLtEny3-TGWZNFJUpxYHkC0jaxOB+oXEKFurcA@mail.gmail.com> <CADnb78jGT4A7QQsK4ZtKzaG9G7ExArss=ic=euq4eT0wVKsYuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/IiJWCkhL0hyVMh8bnSm1bsGE-8k>
Cc: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Closing handshake
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:43:26 -0000

Hi Anne,

> On 16 Mar 2016, at 17:32, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the RFC, in its entirety, is pretty clear that the code is optional
>> in close frame. If the wording has any ambiguity, maybe an editorial errata
>> is in order.
> 
> Sure, the problem is that the API hook requires it, as I mentioned. I
> patched this in the API specification:
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/889. It's a shame we can't update
> the RFC without a lengthy process that nobody probably wants to get
> into.

Updates to existing RFCs is usually much quicker, if the scope of changes is narrow.