Re: [hybi] Resolutions for the issues of the compression spec reported during WGLC

[Takeshi Yoshino <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Julian.

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>wrote:

> I haven't followed the discussions that led to the current design, but
> this smells a bit like a case of an over-engineered extension point. Do you
> *really* expect that negotiation will have to happen on *paramaters*?


No. But see below, please.


> If this is not the case, it would be *much* simpler to simply define
> different tokens for the different schemes and be done. So, for instance:
>
>   Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-compress-deflate
>
> instead of
>
>   Sec-WebSocket-Extensions: permessage-compress; method=deflate
>
>
We've discussed that in this thread.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg09605.html
and made a decision as announced in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg09618.html

There was no strong opinion on either of them. We chose the current design
because:
- to simplify correspondence between a RSV bit and an ext.
- to ease extension list processing by grouping compression method
candidates into one ext.

Shall we go back to the old approach? I'm ok with it.

Comment please everyone.


> Keep in mind that if you extend quoted-string to essentially wrap other
> name/parameter pairs, you may end up with having to escape double quotes;
> and this is asking for trouble for something that really should be easy.