Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt

Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com> Tue, 21 June 2011 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ifette@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5360A11E80BC for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.739
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.729, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QmNXjfBXIf-P for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C272A11E80F0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p5L8Gw7u024962 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:16:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1308644218; bh=4lDxg1c3cFfPf8P/JnKZBWLn7mQ=; h=MIME-Version:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=QYsKyGZCdv+qTGBUo3/JaKtFcHmrG/PfZ+icHR2ax1RFRZzWiBES8f9VXih/ql/aX wVr9Mgmlt4YYC7ozWbhqA==
Received: from qyk29 (qyk29.prod.google.com [10.241.83.157]) by kpbe13.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p5L8GuJA004970 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:16:56 -0700
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so1936796qyk.19 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1Snak03mCnDk0KnjziFChR9OsWbAkhcpggroSXQr2DA=; b=UZ2PEoXQ2XxlKb8w7bEkcAnhTdnFex7IsZ6gjflFvsRu5MCWTIAxxZC5YaabL1Vcay OStsPlPP2rcIm6ma0KYA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=ppL4R2MHvFUutk39ADYr3hCjQdhRjSGMSS7YHpc7TQlWtmk8FPNUIpd8HKF7NFen7m MlI8MI3QmJQbo5WmLReA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.44.198 with SMTP id b6mr4674421qcf.67.1308644215942; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.137.137 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E004D3D.3020305@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <20110613233745.27187.94588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BANLkTinWuzj3V12eerjX0f13yYNdynTOjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E004D3D.3020305@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:16:55 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=T2YLpH4U=qduv_qFZVO3EyLPAUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?SWFuIEZldHRlICjjgqTjgqLjg7Pjg5Xjgqfjg4Pjg4bjgqMp?= <ifette@google.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364184ffa0ed3104a6347939
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ifette@google.com
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:17:01 -0000

I think we should keep the version header, even in the final. It would not
surprise me if there were future versions, this gives us a convenient way to
support that. (Also, -00 didn't have Version - it didn't show up until -04,
so its presence is also a nice way to determine final from some pre-final
versions.)

-Ian

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:50 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>wrote;wrote:

> On 2011/06/21 13:21, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
>> Draft -09 still has examples that say:
>>
>> Sec-WebSocket-Version: 8
>>
>> I guess we also need to think about what we are going to do with this
>> field as we approach "final"
>>
>
> One way to handle this is to add RFC Editor notes to the relevant text
> pieces to tell the RFC Editor to remove the text (and therewith the
> Sec-WebSocket-Version header). This makes sure we always have a version
> indicator even in the last draft (because we're never sure it will be the
> last) but won't have a version in the final base protocol.
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/hybi<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>
>