IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] consensus call: websocketprotocol baseline

Wellington Fernando de Macedo <wfernandom2004@gmail.com> Wed, 12 May 2010 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <wfernandom2004@gmail.com>
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 E13BB28C1DA for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.125
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02=1.666]
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 UPxz+LTIHECW for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAB128C1EC for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb19 with SMTP id 19so102242gwb.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i8Zkb+uz8Bhyn/8zlku/4fWGGvqJ99Q/s2gHHzN4bBw=; b=rjYR+cbdld0OFGArfu+DC7HYdzqwYhtoeON5pszfKd1ncRou5Z2G+sPRfTvkWtXhGW kV0ZTgi+djybHdYblBQaWdR9qpLdJ6hK2+nenwqTfwIj/oDZH+gGs6Jx6mfc4tnM8MJY LsgN65Va3ljM7HyUHBjvaJOIK5ue9VBZM0IPw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bq02pJKpBJ3ce/wfzJRhD8sir+A7eYwp3Ohye0zdd86ChxREmCroKdn+yIR5FLWusQ Rh5byhva9Dvy+78aPiUA2XZbT9HNgj4wNOwyZa3QNfny2jloJC9fR0TVmH5Z5a+tyNxJ jYl9brhnjGJIi8UoTHzJFU87s6a/1RbxUlE/A=
Received: by 10.100.245.35 with SMTP id s35mr4500033anh.71.1273681483900; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (201-92-114-88.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.92.114.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m39sm1033735ann.1.2010.05.12.09.24.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 12 May 2010 09:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BEAD642.40409@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:24:34 -0300
From: Wellington Fernando de Macedo <wfernandom2004@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; pt-BR; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christopher Blizzard <blizzard@mozilla.com>
References: <4BE41BCB.7010707@ericsson.com> <4BEA5306.20903@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4BEA8B97.7060808@webtide.com> <4BEAC900.7040008@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BEAC900.7040008@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, "\"Martin J. D"
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: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:43:52 -0000

Wellington, is the version that you've been working on for Firefox based on -75 or -76?  I saw there was a separate bug opened to update to the most recent version of the protocol, didn't know if that was going to be a separate patch or not.
It is based on the 75th. The other bug is intended for updating our 75th implementation to the latest one (I think the 76th one).

---
Wellington Fernando de Macedo
Computer Engineering
Phone: +55 (16) 8144.8607

Em 12/05/2010 12:28, Christopher Blizzard escreveu:
 On 5/12/2010 4:05 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
Adopting 75 as the baseline will not sort out the mess of deployment
with unversioned different implementations of 75/76 etc.


It was my understanding that the only browser to have shipped this - Chrome - would upgrade once there was a new version available.  It was sadly included in the feature list for the Chrome 5 betas as a feature, but it hasn't seen wide adoption yet.

Wellington, is the version that you've been working on for Firefox based on -75 or -76?  I saw there was a separate bug opened to update to the most recent version of the protocol, didn't know if that was going to be a separate patch or not.

--Chris

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status