[hybi] An input document (was: #1: HTTP Compliance)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 15 August 2010 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 098F53A68E7 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, 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 llPHr8M9PctG for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A473A6934 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7FEUTfF014549; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:30:35 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1281882639; bh=DepqCW3YlPMXaPfmlbGnslDjRiI=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=c2vhGJj23GMrrQR4yYwcrOBzoDltPclRDR6puwikVKQ9QhPAWXnTP9sX/popPJuut F+/VGFIWq+wDd0qjxzchUoFhlFdNHOxWUleu7nvfMQHCw3k72ZBTaCcvqcxNTXv2U8 wdo+iociUKrUIKTcuOYdb0M6BBVX4hZs5MT84QWA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100815063526.099fd9f8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:26:47 -0700
To: hybi@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimQeG32CbZG5DsGmthwH3CwqHtncs7tGCTtg0d+@mail.gmail.c om>
References: <f7d4bb98e444b85b9bf1af6d4d9f0772.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> <20100815100717.GA27614@1wt.eu> <AANLkTimQeG32CbZG5DsGmthwH3CwqHtncs7tGCTtg0d+@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [hybi] An input document (was: #1: HTTP Compliance)
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: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:30:22 -0000

At 03:24 15-08-10, gustav trede wrote:
>So how come that several technical unsound ideas that more or less 
>originate from one person is ending up in the spec proposal in the 
>first place ?.

draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00 was used as an input document 
for the HyBi WG.  As it is an Internet-Draft, it is work in 
progress.  In other words, it is subject to change.

There will be several revisions of the Internet-Draft before it is 
published as a RFC.  The Intended Status of the 
draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00 is Proposed Standard.  The 
Internet-Draft goes through this Working Group Last Call where it has 
to gain the consensus.  It then goes through an IETF-wide Last Call 
where it has to gain the consensus of the IETF Community.  The 
document will also be reviewed by Gen-ART and the Security 
Directorate before the IESG Evaluation.

At 05:27 15-08-10, Shelby Moore wrote:
>Apologies but from the perspective of an outsider, I wasn't clear that all
>of the community had consented to the wisdom and I am hoping to sway many
>of the rest of them, so that the concensus is not oppression (51% forcing
>their will on 49%).  I have no idea what percentage was still on the
>fence, because lurkers aren't counted.

Consensus is not 51% for and 49% against.  "Consensus is a way for 
people to make decisions and generate commitment to those 
decisions.  Coming to decisions by consensus is difficult and 
time-consuming.  It's a much broader and more flexible process than 
simply picking a position and seeing if everybody agrees.  The 
process cannot be reduced to an algorithm; consensus is complex, 
human and messy" {1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary

1. Acknowledgements to Lisa Dusseault