Re: [hybi] method of allocation of reserved bits to extensions

[Brodie Thiesfield <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 28 April 2011 11:16, John Tamplin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I would be opposed to delaying the spec to try and get consensus on
>> negotiating the usage of reserved bits into the base spec, since it can be
>> just as easily postponed until the first extension that wants to make use of
>> some reserved bit.
>
> I also am not keen to see any unreasonable delay.   But I think that
> many of the issues surrounding framing and extensions are now better
> understood and I think that it is worth while to at least revisit
> unresolved issues such as these to see if we can resolve them.

Agreed.

> Currently we have the assumption that if we look at a negotiated WS
> connection and if we know all the extensions that have been
> negotiated, then we will be able to decode the bytes on the wire.
> Unfortunately, as Brodie has pointed out, that does not hold if there
> is more than one extension that uses reserved bits.     I think this
> is an oversight that must be fixed, but I'm not sure that we need
> additional headers etc. for it.
>
> I think it would be sufficient to say that reserved bits are allocated
> to extensions in the order in which the extensions are negotiated (and
> I don't think we need optional bits):

This would work. I'd be happy with this too.

Brodie