Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 21 June 2011 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 C6D579E801E for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 jcEjQAz7FwVt for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDB59E8017 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so3120897qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.17.17 with SMTP id q17mr4836143qca.154.1308647066467; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.181.209 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E00569E.4030400@ericsson.com>
References: <20110613233745.27187.94588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BANLkTinWuzj3V12eerjX0f13yYNdynTOjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E004D3D.3020305@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BANLkTi=T2YLpH4U=qduv_qFZVO3EyLPAUw@mail.gmail.com> <4E00569E.4030400@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:04:26 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTikm33-EQDaRwJM8yJ34QgmrxN7FgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:04:27 -0000

2011/6/21 Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>om>:
> we are not going to remove the version header in the final.
>
> To be clear when we introduced the version header the idea was that it would
> be removed in the final;
> however when developers started to use it, they found it useful
> and since then we have heard only people asking to keep it even in the
> final, while nobody has asked to remove it, neither during the wglc.

IMHO that is because developers are already trying to use WebSocket
and they get confussed with so many versions of the draft (more than
80 in total) and different handshake mechanisms and core protocols
(framing, masking...). So many websocket servers use some ugly version
detection system (by inspecting headers, and so) so they can
accommodate to the client's websocket version.

So, having a header Sec-WebSocket-Version would make life easier for
developers, right. But this is still a hack. I've never seen a
protocol specification upgrading a "version" field in the protocol
messages for each new draft revision. Just never. The protocol version
should be specified in the final RFC, not before.

IMHO this WG is becoming to much "special" and, instead of learning
from the History of Internet protocols, authors are improvising most
of the stuff present in the draft. WebSocket is not just a new
protocol, it is probably "The Protocol" for the next years. Please
don't experiment with such an important specification.

The specification should be written in a way that it becomes a RFC as
best as possible, rather than trying to satisfy impatient developers
during the spec creation process.

Just my opinion. Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>