IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Moving to a CONNECT-based handshake

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Tue, 30 November 2010 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.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 3F7DA28C156 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:11:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.882
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.882 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 4xP22IpX0LaD for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B1728C150 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:11:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.80]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oAUID34S002451 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:13:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1291140784; bh=fenTgbxfKan+QB9KzMW9YVUjeeA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=Ppb6p/fvb2pjWyLFQ8QdTQ9oRoVc9r1OqOwRNE9+naOlPa8FskoVyUVpcpBewutoK bCq1hJtGgqoZ/MuDPRwgQ==
Received: from gxk4 (gxk4.prod.google.com [10.202.11.4]) by kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oAUID2Ft029499 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:13:02 -0800
Received: by gxk4 with SMTP id 4so3796109gxk.7 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:13:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=j57eCLQK/zSdQcI5MHAcm5oUaMSqlHLnFO6HfrArcXo=; b=Vs18VLC7VWVQQwBU6li8bcloODEcEnEb/iNVBHk/DqfUJbA93ssoswnDWsYocM6HcS ile/eXvNZ7sEcePgqZFQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=rE5PaDihBAQQjqOyE10n55nN2+fTjUqtWaPICskekeoSIYq/RxE9vgY7ypi6zuWtJq aEwpXfpFGZrOVhi503bw==
Received: by 10.151.50.10 with SMTP id c10mr521621ybk.434.1291140781700; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:13:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.137.14 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:12:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BB31C4AB95A70042A256109D4619912605790150@XCH117CNC.rim.net>
References: <op.vmzqkhszidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local> <4CF52558.9010100@gmx.de> <4CF529FF.9080708@opera.com> <BB31C4AB95A70042A256109D4619912605790150@XCH117CNC.rim.net>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:12:41 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimzTvtho0m9HZSe6exgSwZxbCnxtmeJd2-G0aSK@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Mason <jmason@rim.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00151750eef2a5f78504964923f5"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Moving to a CONNECT-based handshake
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 18:11:54 -0000

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Joe Mason <jmason@rim.com> wrote:

> Our position at RIM is similar.  We basically have 3 incompatible versions
> of websockets under discussion here: -00, -03, and the hypothetical "-03+new
> handshake".  We haven't shipped a WebSockets enabled browser yet, and we're
> hoping the new handshake can be locked down soon so that we can ship
> "-03+new handshake" as our first version.  But if it drags on too much
> longer we'll be forced to ship -00 just so that our users can have some
> version of websockets.  We have no plans to ship -03 when it's known that it
> will be obsolete as soon as the new handshake is ready, because that would
> multiply the number of incompatible versions in the wild.
>

Since v00 is already known to be obsolete, I don't see how that is better.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email