Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 29 January 2010 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 9EB2D3A6950 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:30:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, PLING_QUERY=1.39]
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 GZvTNPM9mtUN for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:30:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907D03A68B4 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:30:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o0TGUOoW010221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:30:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1264782635; x=1264869035; bh=WuXsVY5NN5/MwvGM18THnIFE8LjHPWNWE28N20QStmw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=nBu11gQqnLH181zM42duF6FU1veFwG9AwyRX+DoIj+IbQpPu4knua1lbXtxQJeWCd WRfJ/vwvyNV032agU3HZsRwuA2Q7ZhwbRYh4HJcdUIDAY7NhAIP1RwOxeU/BaatpGo 62y5MPgYShqlV24MU+Pc0MwM6qTewRzMD/suZrkE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=auHxiMHBCbJ4OlaUHMvaLYhz0UEGPN1ix2PcATE3/nqbCWMQwQL0YlqXmF2YqLdxh eseg2xsGrH39kjhLKxuLnozF4zd+fONLxQu2lIXNHmECXM+OTOiZgQhtu5wv1RNtnZh VReJ+44NRE3kRTFl3Zt3xf+oc10ifQjaMXNi7H0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100129071038.09c66860@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:30:10 -0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001291140440.22020@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
References: <de17d48e1001280012i2657b587i83cda30f50013e6b@mail.gmail.com> <4B614CEC.2050400@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001280856380.22020@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B616F17.4030402@ericsson.com> <4B619223.60408@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001282141080.22020@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B620B8F.6030706@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001282217320.22053@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <bbeaa26f1001281449q1a6e1813q3f537fe15a5a9d60@mail.gmail.com> <4B625733.2020907@webtide.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100128225542.06fa8d68@resistor.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001290817520.22020@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100129023917.06806000@resistor.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001291140440.22020@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?
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, 29 Jan 2010 16:30:16 -0000

Hi Ian,
At 03:51 29-01-10, Ian Hickson wrote:
>I'm certainly all in favour of more review -- I'm not sure limiting it to
>the IETF is necessarily a good plan though. I would hope we would look for

There may be better ways to get reviews which I am not aware of.

>there are specific groups we can invite to comment on the spec who are not
>yet aware of the spec, I would be happy to contact them; do you have any
>suggestions on this front?

No.

>If the charter is to be relevant, it seems that acknowledging what is
>actually being done is important. Personally I do not put much stock in
>charters, so it's not a priority for me, but if people are going to refer
>to the charter, then we should make sure they refer to something that
>reflects reality.

The charter specifies the objectives and sets the milestones.  It 
would be tedious to find the working group administrative information 
and deliverables without a charter.

>Does it not seem odd that the people who discussed where the spec should
>be edited did not include the person editing the spec?

Yes, that would look odd.  You took part of the discussion ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg00753.html )

>(I did not at any point see agreement on this list that the HyBi group
>should take over the WHATWG work without working with the WHATWG. I've
>read every e-mail sent to this list since it was created.)

The content of the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg00765.html may 
be relevant.

By the way, some browser vendors supported the creation of this 
Working Group ( see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg00604.html and 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg00647.html ).

Could the WHATWG inform this Working Group about the name of the 
person(s) speaking on behalf of the group?

Regards,
-sm