Re: [hybi] WebSocket Version Numbers

Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com> Wed, 22 June 2011 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ifette@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55F711E80B7 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SB0RyV-UtQ0a for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9B511E8087 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.65]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p5M1L5EJ006107 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:05 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1308705665; bh=lH6PaRPxjxzvFME6gulqsUjAins=; h=MIME-Version:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=CyqqOp5quimR87u6nxN5d3l1io1Nv9grZAWS1RYPQkQMiO6GUbyfRvzR4AR86B1us jiBP29tcsDwXr33MJQi3Q==
Received: from qwb8 (qwb8.prod.google.com [10.241.193.72]) by wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p5M1L4r2018043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:04 -0700
Received: by qwb8 with SMTP id 8so262480qwb.39 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=i950bEAFw9za49i1njICGbv0EtqtvvlE99zbPT7MCVI=; b=w4XPbdl8Hs6fzelUW6Tl+D2kcinOYNQ27zDt+bbPCut03q7soWhmrGBbnGDQvHfete /cYvEitnQKpXCUpXORrw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=yIUbPza+qwvx7M/UPFFBJcV4JpuhtKS1AN8bZGP42UPKDKHrww0xYms05gNECrJULl gm3uPvsGAIbs21bw6NHw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.44.198 with SMTP id b6mr53661qcf.67.1308705663779; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.137.137 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin35icuwjNVbJc4fAsA0ezGj8HqJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110621061036.ef1fc80126c74c6c202a919c41c7bb0b.7a63d337a6.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <4E00A2FE.8010601@stpeter.im> <BANLkTin35icuwjNVbJc4fAsA0ezGj8HqJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:03 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikr4Arf2Lv7aaSc_WuXCfzo7y0+mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016364184ff34844a04a642c8cb"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, Bob Gezelter <gezelter@rlgsc.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] WebSocket Version Numbers
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ifette@google.com
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 22 Jun 2011 01:21:10 -0000

Is there any real reason for using major and minor version numbers? Has any
protocol actually been able to use minor version numbers for anything useful
(e.g. both sides understand the major version but only one side understands
the minor version and it's still useful? 1.1 was a minor version upgrade to
HTTP and yet for all practical purposes it may as well have been 2.0.)

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> On 21 June 2011 23:56, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> > On 6/21/11 7:10 AM, Bob Gezelter wrote:
> > Once again I recommend borrowing from the text in RFC 6120 if
> > appropriate, see Section 4.7.5...
>
>
> +1
>
> although I think we must now also say that a single integer should
> considered a minor version with major version being 0.
> So 8 == 0.8
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> > ###
> >
> >   The numbering scheme for XMPP versions is "<major>.<minor>".  The
> >   major and minor numbers MUST be treated as separate integers and each
> >   number MAY be incremented higher than a single digit.  Thus, "XMPP
> >   2.4" would be a lower version than "XMPP 2.13", which in turn would
> >   be lower than "XMPP 12.3".  Leading zeros (e.g., "XMPP 6.01") MUST be
> >   ignored by recipients and MUST NOT be sent.
> >
> >   The major version number will be incremented only if the stream and
> >   stanza formats or obligatory actions have changed so dramatically
> >   that an older version entity would not be able to interoperate with a
> >   newer version entity if it simply ignored the elements and attributes
> >   it did not understand and took the actions defined in the older
> >   specification.
> >
> >   The minor version number will be incremented only if significant new
> >   capabilities have been added to the core protocol (e.g., a newly
> >   defined value of the 'type' attribute for message, presence, or IQ
> >   stanzas).  The minor version number MUST be ignored by an entity with
> >   a smaller minor version number, but MAY be used for informational
> >   purposes by the entity with the larger minor version number (e.g.,
> >   the entity with the larger minor version number would simply note
> >   that its correspondent would not be able to understand that value of
> >   the 'type' attribute and therefore would not send it).
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>