Re: [hybi] Questions and comments on draft-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10

Alexey Melnikov <> Mon, 18 July 2011 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AAD21F8B58 for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70vBmk1J5pFk for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3226121F8557 for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ((unknown) []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:36:27 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:35:58 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Mark Nottingham <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: " HTTP" <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Questions and comments on draft-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:36:39 -0000

Mark Nottingham wrote:

Hi Mark,
Answering to your questions selectively:

>I've just read through -10, and wanted to ask a few questions. These are NOT (yet) Last Call comments, as I haven't kept up with the hybi list for a while, and haven't reviewed a draft since around -06. 
>In other words, I'd like to understand things a bit more before making LC comments; there may be good reasons for the few things I saw that raised my eyebrows.

>2) The Upgrade token has no version; e.g., from the examples in 1.2:
>    Upgrade: websocket
>Why? The protocol version seems to be carried in the Sec-WebSocket-Version header; could it not be moved (or copied) to the upgrade token?
What is the value in duplicating the version in the Upgrade token?

>3) The last paragraph of 1.2 seems to be a bit of a non-sequiter; all protocols need framing, not just those used by event-driven implementations.
Yes, this can be reworded not to mention event-driven implementations.


>7) The contact field for registry entries in 11.13 is listed as ''org'. Is that list going to persist?
Yes. At least I would be surprised if it wouldn't.

>Common practice is to use AIUI.  
I think leave the WG mailing list is Ok. I wouldn't get stuck on this 
and if IESG thinks otherwise, we can change.