Re: [hybi] -09: IANA considerations

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On Fri Jun 17 21:07:22 2011, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)  
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre  
> <[e-mail]>wrote:
> > Section 11.12 says that assignment of WebSocket Version Numbers  
> shall be
> > "RFC Required", but then requests assignment of version numbers  
> 0-8 to
> > prior submissions of this Internet-Draft. The requested  
> assignments are
> > at odds with the stated policy.
> >
> 
> RFC Required is different from Standards Action. RFC Publication  
> (either as
> an IETF submission or as an RFC editor independent submission)  
> suffices.
> Standards Action requires Standards Track RFCs approved by the  
> IESG. My
> understanding from this as that an I-D counts as an IETF submission?

Yes, but it only counts as an RFC once it's published...

The solution is to assign these to this document, but note in this  
section that versions 1-8 are older versions.

One might even ask IANA to maintain a note saying that, when creating  
the registry.

That all said, it's not clear to me this really needs a registry, or  
why one might want to allow independant stream RFCs to define a new  
version number - that effectively means that the next version of  
WebSockets might not be an IETF protocol at all. In contrast with the  
other registries - which seem reasonable - allowing random people to  
invent new and conflicting versions seems like a recipe for chaos.

I'd have thought that we want standards-track here, and in any case,  
the version numbers would be handled by Obsoletes/Updates perfectly  
well.

Am I missing something?

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[e-mail] - xmpp:[e-mail]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade