Re: [hybi] Multiplexing extension spec draft 03

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Wed, 29 February 2012 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tyoshino@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 8DD9321E8091 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:13:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id atssh1+O6h8v for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B813921E8017 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so1814605yen.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of tyoshino@google.com designates 10.236.185.97 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.236.185.97;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of tyoshino@google.com designates 10.236.185.97 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=tyoshino@google.com; dkim=pass header.i=tyoshino@google.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.236.185.97]) by 10.236.185.97 with SMTP id t61mr2727009yhm.100.1330546417424 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:13:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=ybrfNfQVgOg1QCdZ7fiiHPSmlIM7hO4WuRhtZMfApu0=; b=H0rk6X/sIlnVU2VjqhxJCj1oOe5hSey6jMgnDAu9bHk8Sn28iio6CQF1OquWFu3qXz IbUZgJkLzWStOQ1JNkFvjHGT+SdZ+/Itr5WIKy/MB5z6dMWnEIJ2x0umgqabaG5BFaxw sRIjSH7Eqc/ivDCb4gui7HopYCr3jdm7mhMUY5GmM3V/M2Agu38orPBkRsFX3fe4to6z LuZtHKkiiCAQpLU6t3r5cV/hq9d2X/xJtspyRqspDhHr4GSxMZoQe8Cf5ZlK1VEx8ESO sap1bailUwh3TpEUDk9DuQCrjPXibML0GJ9tI+hjvmOPrCE+2l56uZicdy9xLoiEAUtK hqIQ==
Received: by 10.236.185.97 with SMTP id t61mr2152686yhm.100.1330546417364; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:13:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.185.97 with SMTP id t61mr2152679yhm.100.1330546417278; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:13:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.155.5 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:13:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABLsOLCwgM9UzDtX_QJcBexQb+NsnQ18kDtF7hoCModTD4akWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9hSJb1ewPO3EBgD78anD+=4XouToGR4X7C1wvWqonc2nYB6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4zZZD=RdbONYzhYwpinzOXeQ+JZTRJ4s4-5z-M7MzZ-SkCjg@mail.gmail.com> <CABLsOLCwgM9UzDtX_QJcBexQb+NsnQ18kDtF7hoCModTD4akWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:13:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJbKY4m5JHtWai7tEvDdXZriTP2wBpSjM033LtrUCSwvYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf305e24978f1e5504ba1ffa23"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkoAecNXku93FYS/byMCGYrvMklAYxtkBvxrXDaATKTqTaA2bEQnKau/m+95uGAKO6AlFgpOfSj2Qb9B86E8AkyJqbfRusbFXfia9BLHu/Ty0S2Xjw3t9kmHMZC26VtZ05wsJJs
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Multiplexing extension spec draft 03
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:13:38 -0000

Thanks. I'll do so in the next version.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 15:03, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Joakim Erdfelt <joakim@intalio.com>wrote:
>
>> Would it be appropriate to reference RFC6455 Sec 1.3 Opening Handshake in
>> the section explaining the mux AddChannel request (mux Sec 7.1) headers?
>>
>> Similar in the way that RFC6455 Sec 1.3 references RFC2616?
>>
>
> Sounds good.
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>