Re: [hybi] -09: IANA considerations

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 6/21/11 6:30 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Fri Jun 17 21:07:22 2011, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> <[e-mail]>wrote:
>> > Section 11.12 says that assignment of WebSocket Version Numbers
>> shall be
>> > "RFC Required", but then requests assignment of version numbers 0-8 to
>> > prior submissions of this Internet-Draft. The requested assignments are
>> > at odds with the stated policy.
>> >
>>
>> RFC Required is different from Standards Action. RFC Publication
>> (either as
>> an IETF submission or as an RFC editor independent submission) suffices.
>> Standards Action requires Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG. My
>> understanding from this as that an I-D counts as an IETF submission?
> 
> Yes, but it only counts as an RFC once it's published...
> 
> The solution is to assign these to this document, but note in this
> section that versions 1-8 are older versions.
> 
> One might even ask IANA to maintain a note saying that, when creating
> the registry.
> 
> That all said, it's not clear to me this really needs a registry, or why
> one might want to allow independant stream RFCs to define a new version
> number - that effectively means that the next version of WebSockets
> might not be an IETF protocol at all. In contrast with the other
> registries - which seem reasonable - allowing random people to invent
> new and conflicting versions seems like a recipe for chaos.
> 
> I'd have thought that we want standards-track here, and in any case, the
> version numbers would be handled by Obsoletes/Updates perfectly well.

Seems reasonable, yes.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/