[hybi] -09: IANA considerations

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 17 June 2011 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 5E4FA21F8588 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 pnKoPth9HAli for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB13B21F84A6 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-207.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-207.cisco.com [64.101.72.207]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2133B400A5 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:25:56 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4DFB8E07.60908@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:25:27 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070902070604040508060708"
Subject: [hybi] -09: IANA considerations
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: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:25:42 -0000

Sections 11.1 and 11.2 both say:

      Characters in the host component that are excluded by the syntax
      defined above MUST be converted from Unicode to ASCII by applying
      the IDNA ToASCII algorithm to the Unicode host name, with both the
      AllowUnassigned and UseSTD3ASCIIRules flags set, and using the
      result of this algorithm as the host in the URI.  [RFC3490]

RFC 3490 has been obsoleted by RFC 5890 and RFC 5891. We'll need to
modernize this text.

Sections 11. and 11.2 both say:

   Interoperability considerations.
      None.

However, the template in RFC 4395 says:

   Interoperability considerations.
      If you are aware of any details regarding your scheme that might
      impact interoperability, please identify them here.  For example:
      proprietary or uncommon encoding method; inability to support
      multibyte character sets; incompatibility with types or versions
      of any underlying protocol.

Now, Section 5.1 of the WebSocket spec says:

   2.   The Method of the request MUST be GET and the HTTP version MUST
        be at least 1.1.

So it seems that the interoperability considerations of our URI
registration requests might need to say something about incompability
with HTTP 1.0.

Section 11.6 mentions private use tokens beginning with "x-". Ick. :)

Typo in Section 11.10: "Paragraph 10 of Paragraph 4 of Section 5.1 "

Section 11.12 says that assignment of WebSocket Version Numbers shall be
"RFC Required", but then requests assignment of version numbers 0-8 to
prior submissions of this Internet-Draft. The requested assignments are
at odds with the stated policy.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/