Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant
James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> Tue, 01 June 2010 15:13 UTC
Return-Path: <jgraham@opera.com>
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 C8F963A68F2 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, 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 RBA2GCwQCLNG for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.opera.com (smtp.opera.com [213.236.208.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E371B28B23E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.0.35] (046-tdc.opera.com [213.236.208.46] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.opera.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id o51FDVQP031258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:13:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4C05239A.3050503@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:13:30 +0200
From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100217 Shredder/3.0.3pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hybi@ietf.org
References: <AANLkTikzNjRse7cK8hl7eX0zWL3xP0xgbGTV8hz8RruH@mail.gmail.com> <op.vdmg9uenidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local> <AANLkTil1gofHSKy1laRnudnZePhuDnAP53OZrq_b-kR5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTil1gofHSKy1laRnudnZePhuDnAP53OZrq_b-kR5@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant
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: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:13:47 -0000
On 06/01/2010 05:04 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> Simon,
>
> I agree that there are parts of the spec that imply arbitrary headers
> are acceptable,
> but it also says:
>
> Fields in the handshake are sent by the client in a random order; the
> order is not meaningful.
>
> Additional fields are used to select options in the WebSocket
> protocol. The only options available in this version are the ...
That is explicitly non-normative text. The normative requirements are
the ones that Simon mentioned, specifically Step 41 of the client
handshake, which says:
"""
Any other name
Ignore it.
"""
> Ian has indicated that this means that the presence of other headers means that
> the handshake should fail.
That's not what the spec says.
- [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant Simon Pieters
- Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant James Graham
- Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant Wellington Fernando de Macedo
- Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant Simon Pieters
- Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant Simon Pieters
- Re: [hybi] Why HTTP Compliant Bruce Atherton