Re: [hybi] Websockets sub-protocol registry

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

On 14/03/2016 16:43, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 2016-03-14 17:04, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>         On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>
>             On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Ted Hardie
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>         wrote:
>             > We simply don't want to assume it; we'd like it to be
>         specified, at least in
>             > the RTCWEB case.
>
>             In the typical use of the word, "a" does not match "A".
>
>
>             > Back to the IANA side of the question: Any objection to
>         specifying that IANA
>             > should not register two values that differed only in 
>         case?  The current
>             > instructions aren't clear on that.
>
>             Why? That would restrict the value space. We don't do that
>         for HTTP
>             verbs either (although it might make sense there, and
>         require them to
>             be uppercase).
>
>
>         The IANA registry currently has 23 items in it; restricting
>         the value
>         space does not seem like a current issue.  Basically, you
>         would do it so
>         that confusion in which was meant did not occur in the event that
>         someone did attempt the registration of XMPP (rather than
>         xmpp, which is
>         already registered).   This is a first-come-first-served
>         registry, so
>         there is no one to give helpful advice to registrants on this
>         to avoid;
>         the best we can do is give instructions to IANA.
>
>         regards,
>
>         Ted
>
>
>     The main risk I see is that people could mis-read this as meaning
>     that the values are indeed case-insensitive. Of course that could
>     be mitigated by being crystal clear in the wording.
>
>
> How would this work:
>
> "The tokens registered in the Websockets sub-protocol registry created 
> by RFC 6445 Section 11.5 are matched using case-sensitive string 
> match.  IANA is, however, instructed to decline registrations in the 
> registry which differ only as to case, in order to minimize potential 
> confusion among different registered versions.  For other useful 
> advice on avoiding collision, registrants are encourage to consult the 
> non-normative section 1.9 of RFC 6445."
>
> We can either put that in the RTCWEB draft, a short draft updating 
> just the registration portion of RFC 6445,
I slightly prefer the latter, but the former would be Ok.
> or possibly even in an accepted erratum.
We can do that as well. Although I would rather the erratum not being 
the only source of information on this.
> If it were an accepted erratum for RFC 6445, we would likely still 
> want to include something in the RTCWEB docs noting that those were 
> the rules (but not having that doc update the RFC.)
>
> Any thoughts on that approach?