IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 02 September 2010 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 B01943A6AE6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 UHsPpbDZpqUy for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BAF33A6C54 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Sep 2010 17:39:16 -0000
Received: from p508FBC80.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.188.128] by mail.gmx.net (mp064) with SMTP; 02 Sep 2010 19:39:16 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Qadt681wQpSyxDu7HcH7RGEw0F29YfP7CMt4UUJ 9v5BmSK4C9KSyu
Message-ID: <4C7FE13B.1060600@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:39:07 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gabriel Montenegro <gmonte@microsoft.com>
References: <20100901224502.0519B3A687C@core3.amsl.com> <4C7F8EE7.1040106@opera.com> <4C7F92D1.20106@gmx.de> <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C110FAFE4D7@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C110FAFE4D7@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt
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: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:53:29 -0000

On 02.09.2010 18:57, Gabriel Montenegro wrote:
> The real issue here is that MUST is the right keyword if something is required for interoperability. A SHOULD means you are recommended to do a certain thing, but you may depart from that recommendation if you know better or have a good reason. MAY is for optional stuff.

"may know better" certainly isn't an excuse.

> My take on it is that the basic framing is absolutely a MUST. Optional stuff like multiplexing or compression are MAYs (when and if we get to them). Fragmentation support sounds like a SHOULD.

I agree that there probably shouldn't be any wiggle room wrt framing.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email