Re: [hybi] Revision of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> Thu, 12 August 2010 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
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 665DD3A6848 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:38:08 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 w24aCvZH5GZV for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail78.messagelabs.com (mail78.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE8D3A680B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-78.messagelabs.com!1281656323!15510641!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.43]
Received: (qmail 1222 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2010 23:38:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.43) by server-6.tower-78.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Aug 2010 23:38:43 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.14]) by EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.43]) with mapi; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:38:42 +0100
From: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: hybi@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:38:42 +0100
Thread-Topic: [hybi] Revision of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00
Thread-Index: Acs6daEPNC7O/258TbSkeFhO6YxQxAAACymo
Message-ID: <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A3730C2BF320E6@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20100812143126.0602ae40@elandnews.com> <AANLkTi=QYBVb3jwH_EW8kPvzCvQN7VgBqGSimSj2Q41-@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=XtqX2Pce+J3Ssn+dxW+-=T23v7i0Vn=QujAgH@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008122232140.32016@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100812160936.08586a10@resistor.net>, <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008122320120.32016@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008122320120.32016@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [hybi] Revision of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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, 12 Aug 2010 23:38:08 -0000

It's been almost two months, including an IETF meeting, and this situation is getting increasingly farcical.

The WHATWG oversight committee has the ability to override the WHATWG editor (Hixie).

There should be direct dialogue between the IETF chairs and AD and the oversight committee. The results of that dialogue can then
be communicated to Hixie and the rest of us.

(Please include discussion of development timescales and mismatched expectations of the different communities in that dialogue.)

Hixie: The message above was written without saying 'I' or 'my'. Try it.

________________________________________
From: hybi-bounces@ietf.org [hybi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson [ian@hixie.ch]
Sent: 13 August 2010 00:25
To: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Revision of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, S Moonesamy wrote:
>
> Please submit a revision of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol with
> the changes that were requested in my previous message [1].

I am very happy to work with you and the chairs and the working group and
whoever else to find wording that encourages interoperability, gives
readers a full understanding of the situation, and fulfills whatever
policies you may care about.

However, I'm not going to regress the specification text. Removing the
text pointing to the latest version and removing the text saying where
that feedback should be sent (even if that's just the hybi list and we
stick our head in the sand about the WHATWG list) is a bad idea, which
will directly lead to worse implementations and worse interoperability. My
primary concern is with fostering interoperability, far above any IETF
policies that might contradict such a goal, and I will not act in a way to
harm interoperability.

Here is proposed text to replace the two sections you mentioned:

     Abstract

        [...]

        NOTE!  THIS COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT THE EDITOR'S DRAFT AND
        THEREFORE MAY NOT CONTAIN THE LATEST CHANGES.

        For an up-to-date copy of this specification, please see:

        http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-socket-protocol/

     Author's note

        Please send feedback to the hybi@ietf.org mailing list.

        This document is automatically generated from the same source
        document as the HTML specification, and is also published in HTML
        form as part of the WHATWG Web Applications 1.0 specification.
        Feedback is therefore also occasionally sent, against IETF policy, to
        the whatwg@whatwg.org mailing list.

Would this address your concerns?

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
_______________________________________________
hybi mailing list
hybi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi