IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] consensus call: websocketprotocol baseline

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 07 May 2010 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD923A681F for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.349, BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0OsPItCZIacy for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D8AD3A67B5 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 May 2010 07:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 May 2010 14:42:03 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.116]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 07 May 2010 16:42:03 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18TSTA5Ft4TRYq9du77axff5N17DwokDyvYmtYyD7 GTj86OVRAPml3y
Message-ID: <4BE426B3.7010500@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 16:41:55 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
References: <4BE41BCB.7010707@ericsson.com> <4BE4241B.7060906@webtide.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BE4241B.7060906@webtide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] consensus call: websocketprotocol baseline
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 07 May 2010 14:42:18 -0000

On 07.05.2010 16:30, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> Sal,
>
> As I'm sure you can guess, my preference is for 75 over 76,
> because of the non HTTP compliant issues (not because
> of breaking changes).
>
> However, I do recognize that there is also much goodness in
> 76 that we don't really want to lose or even revisit.
>
> So I'd like to suggest a third alternative for consensus:
> that Ian prepare a 77 draft, based on 76, but with the handshake
> reverted to the 75 handshake.
> ...

+1

That being said, the *much* more interesting question (to me at least) 
is how we manage the process once we have a Working Group draft.

Best regards, Julian

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status