Re: [hybi] WebSocket feedback

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

Ian,

thanks for taking on board a lot of feedback and introducing some
interesting updates to the draft.

However, I hope that this type of mass update is a once off due
to the circumstances we find in starting off the WG.  In general
I think it would be far easier handle changes in smaller
increments and individual threads.    Also it would be good
to see proposed diffs to the draft before they are actually
just put in the draft.   Sorry - don't mean to rain on your
parade when you've done so much.


A couple of minor points.

If the handshake messages are to contain content, then they
MUST have headers to indicate the content length to be legal
HTTP: in this case, a Content-Length header would be appropriate


Considering that we are already shipping products with
websocket implementations from the existing draft, can we
specify a transition to the new handshake in an appendix.

Ie while the standard is under development connections without
websocket keys MAY be accepted, but implementation SHOULD warn
that support for such connections is deprecated.


The text of 1.3, still kind of implies that the HTTP fields
must be ordered as per the spec.  Can we add a sentence to say
that header ordering may be different.


Also I'm not sure this sentence is really that clear:

 "Additional fields are used to select options in the WebSocket
   protocol.  The only option available in this version is the
   subprotocol selector, |Sec-WebSocket-Protocol|:"

I thought we were going to allow arbitrary extra headers,
but that their interpretation was not defined by the ws spec
other than the optional Sec-WebSocket-Protocol.    We still
need to allow headers for cookies, authentication etc.


regards