Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets

[gabriel montenegro <[e-mail]>]

Phasing out development is good, but I agree with Greg about building in, from 
day one, some way to extend or add other features as the charter is clear that 
this is not just for browsers. Even though it is possible to define future 
headers or using the subprotocol mechanism to define or change behavior to one's 
satisfaction, what is not clear is what would be the status of those specs, nor 
what document or delivery vehicle would be used. That is fine for some 
functionality, but what the charter calls for is for the WG to produce a general 
protocol (not just for browsers) as part of the official WG document. So it's 
not enough to say that one could define future behavior, we have to define a 
complete protocol which in my mind implies binary support at least.

BTW, I like to look at the charter, as that is what guides the WG. There used to 
be a time when charters were
nice, decorative items in the IETF. That changed already several years ago. Now 
the IESG approves charter for a reason.
The IESG will hold the WG accountable for it.  

Gabriel

----- Original Message ----
> From: Anne van Kesteren <[e-mail]>
> To: Ian Hickson <[e-mail]>; Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 7:58:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets
> 
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:00:08 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Ian's suggested timeline below sounds like an excellent way to proceed, in my 
>opinion.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> --Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>