IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

Brian <theturtle32@gmail.com> Tue, 30 November 2010 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <theturtle32@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 A244F3A6C97 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:01:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 I-XU3cgftt3a for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77313A6C92 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so7971655iwn.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:03:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=al41H+tKVvrX2nrG5gDNT8PaVGfBllFm+pfZzH7TNP4=; b=KbT9z5yU7rn89xG4lxdjJlOR1HYjs/cAvZQrgAiYQwdGsZ9F14wgy54ImLEYmYhUM+ BnmWhIsVudfqxbQXCjBXRW2khk3f3+1QkL2PdEk8YWrQhy6AgrSyC01xwmiuogafq59/ aFGWR7qw0tKYbg6RuWwso45nm8S8nvF+SpRto=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bbwhv8WSb3qioM1XCy4ZZtuu/50XQL20+bD7YsnTKUnon0WcxeN0ajAfe9nOKb9wJt j0BxwNlPk//cN4lXcjlWCwY5n+eLNX9iNrzIbGamYQmbsrn9xKLkGHC5g60ET6NmmaHB jvlLasYO/OIZ6uUbtvnRXbtbIu/wFQs9xzBzY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.10.132 with SMTP id p4mr8073330ibp.40.1291158183795; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.152.207 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:03:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4CF3F563.3050808@caucho.com>
References: <AANLkTim_8g-Cb01si00EkvCK5BtXUx3zHsUee1F6JqsD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimSu1fOGCg0gqX2EFh4v-MkpZuY_-onm3+TO_Z0@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimYpdp-75BQSmhAUfyrQv19LvzF1ouznst+ANUG@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbycTS51Ein9ybbZ52zcrViFCNBjCmpRGD3yCk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim=_Ey_7tSJ0H8OKzip-UcwtJ=YMG5wf_f_qnty@mail.gmail.com> <20101127071644.GB26428@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=Rqu-hm=Jy-GFf706smD8zEHbeD-oP7dNCN6Ro@mail.gmail.com> <20101127161638.GE26428@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=snwcb8F89KjpD8tQUYSSBr6YF1OdaGgr1e9Xa@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=2M1ubEgR44PL7JpydkaZaOwwimuvhJq=E30+A@mail.gmail.com> <4CF1EFF9.7040803@caucho.com> <AANLkTimotYL70P3Rqwz3uFbf=G3JERkUJqqdEhU6eMEb@mail.gmail.com> <4CF3E676.8040001@caucho.com> <AANLkTimn92qXDa+7HNW79bSSHhEryH0kPCYYbkDsUZRZ@mail.gmail.com> <4CF3F563.3050808@caucho.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:03:03 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimW3CP-B9TuXhtRYr051eExkMgZPT_Rm7XMp8NK@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian <theturtle32@gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes
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: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:01:52 -0000

Adam, since it's been a while and I've lost the link to the new
handshake proposal, can you verify for me (and others) that this is
the most up-to-date version that I should be reading?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-websocket-handshake-01


Thanks,
Brian McKelvey
Worlize, Inc.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com> wrote:
> Adam Barth wrote:
>>
>> 2010/11/29 Scott Ferguson <ferg@caucho.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Adam Barth wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This change is already incorporated in the current version of
>>>> draft-abarth-websocket-handshake.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This really shows the disadvantage of the "procedural" style of spec
>>> writing. By obfuscating the intention of the spec, you make it difficult
>>> to see changes or to evaluate what the proposal is doing.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.  We should be able to get all the editorial issues sorted out
>> once we've got consensus on the technical issues.  For the time being,
>> draft-abarth-websocket-handshake just matches the editorial style of
>> the corresponding section of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol.
>>
>
> You're missing the point.
>
> It's hard to evaluate the proposal for technical purposes the way you've
> written it. Many of the people on this list, including me, are very busy
> people and really don't have the time to wade through a proposal that's
> deliberately written in an obfuscatory fashion.
>
> The problem has nothing to do with the final language; it's about
> communicating proposals for the people on this list.
>
> -- Scott
>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email