Re: [hybi] WebSocket Version Numbers

"Bob Gezelter" <gezelter@rlgsc.com> Wed, 22 June 2011 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <gezelter@rlgsc.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 DCD5721F8595 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, 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 iKDLJ5YVe-vL for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpoutwbe11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpoutwbe11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [208.109.78.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2647621F852D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21499 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2011 01:58:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (72.167.218.130) by smtpoutwbe11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 22 Jun 2011 01:58:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 25746 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jun 2011 01:58:10 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 162.83.149.110
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.5.05
Message-Id: <20110621185808.ef1fc80126c74c6c202a919c41c7bb0b.5fa1e42ad8.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
From: "Bob Gezelter" <gezelter@rlgsc.com>
To: ifette@google.com
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:58:08 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] WebSocket Version Numbers
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: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:58:12 -0000

Ian,

I admittedly do not have a list at my fingertips (at least for
protocols). With APIs, the difference between major and minor is a
question of upward compatibility (as was said in the follow-on to my
suggestion with regards to XMPP).

An incompatible change is signaled by a change in the major revision
level. A compatible change is signaled by a change in the minor revision
level. I have seen clients that depended on the difference between HTTP
1.0 and HTTP 1.1, and would not work with the newer protocol level.

Separately, major/minor version numbers are very useful when
troubleshooting problems, particularly when dealing with servers (or
clients) that are not under one's control.

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [hybi] WebSocket Version Numbers
> From: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>
> Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:21 pm
> To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
> Cc: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>im>, hybi@ietf.org,        Bob
> Gezelter <gezelter@rlgsc.com>
> 
> 
> Is there any real reason for using major and minor version numbers? Has any
> protocol actually been able to use minor version numbers for anything useful
> (e.g. both sides understand the major version but only one side understands
> the minor version and it's still useful? 1.1 was a minor version upgrade to
> HTTP and yet for all practical purposes it may as well have been 2.0.)
> 
>
[Earlier exchanges removed in the interest of brevity]