Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt

Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> Thu, 02 September 2010 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
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 8BBC13A68D4 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 GWhOKH-kG3U4 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wipe.it.helsinki.fi (wipe.it.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44EB53A6A00 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wipe.it.helsinki.fi (wipe.it.helsinki.fi [128.214.205.70]) by wipe.it.helsinki.fi (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o82EIROI014587; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 17:18:27 +0300
Received: from localhost.localdomain (cs181150024.pp.htv.fi [82.181.150.24]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o82EIRIX002805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Sep 2010 17:18:27 +0300
Message-ID: <4C7FB233.1050908@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:18:27 +0300
From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ifette@google.com
References: <20100901224502.0519B3A687C@core3.amsl.com> <AANLkTikP1CF22fL0rBniXmrxEoBAbTNfzP9kyiNA4nbb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=_1m36ThFZTH_aGE_Unz0KTeexJq_74UGr2j+u@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikmYvJaZnc-SAaGm1Xztn31DqTnttonKFNBvT86@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimHUDGW=XGgjPFG9n+s01Q21e_BvHS+X6VSFUdD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikKHi3Wqy+SgYzk9KxU8o9dpAbEZCQH3UcPkAa_@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikKHi3Wqy+SgYzk9KxU8o9dpAbEZCQH3UcPkAa_@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-HY-Tests: ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Olli@pettay.fi
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: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:19:50 -0000

On 09/02/2010 02:37 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> +1. Adam, I share your concerns about versions on the web, but the
> reality is there is no other way right now. Suggestions welcome as to
> alternatives.

Couldn't web applications use different subprotocols for different
versions of the web socket protocol.
That wouldn't be the nicest solution, but could work
well enough while we're trying to get some stable protocol.


-Olli


(I haven't read properly the current draft, but the framing looks too
  complicated. I'll send comments once I've reviewed the draft properly.)





>
> On Sep 1, 2010 4:27 PM, "John Tamplin" <jat@google.com
> <mailto:jat@google.com>> wrote:
>  > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com
> <mailto:gregw@webtide.com>> wrote:
>  >> my proposal was not to add versioning to the protocol - as I know some
>  >> think it is an anti pattern.
>  >>
>  >> I just want to be able to implement the next draft without breaking
>  >> all my users that have been working on the last draft.   So my
>  >> proposal is only for a draft version to be added by implementers as
>  >> non-standard convenience at this time. The lack of a draft version can
>  >> be taken to mean the final stable version.
>  >>
>  >> How else do you expect servers to track the drafts and deal with the
>  >> various browser implementations out there?
>  >
>  > The problem is that the framing of v75, v76, v00, and v01 are
>  > incompatible. If you want to write a server that interoperates with
>  > browsers implementing these drafts (I know at least v75 and v76 are in
>  > the wild), then you have to rely on heuristics to figure out which one
>  > you are talking to. Even if there isn't a version in the 1.0 spec,
>  > any attempt to get real-world data while the spec is changing means
>  > you either have a version number or you heuristically determine one --
>  > the latter is obviously more prone to error.
>  >
>  > I would suggest adding Sec-WebSocket-Draft: 01 to implementations of
>  > this draft, and that header will only be present before the spec is
>  > finalized.
>  >
>  > --
>  > John A. Tamplin
>  > Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > hybi mailing list
>  > hybi@ietf.org <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi