Re: [hybi] Websockets sub-protocol registry

Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> Mon, 14 March 2016 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <annevk@annevk.nl>
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 83C8612DA54 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=annevk.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E6ORgraZdsau for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F99E12DA53 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4839225C06B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=annevk.nl; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc: content-type; s=annevk.nl; bh=LdLlCCQzEVbhQSVOD6wQB0uBQEc=; b=LU nrRRcAf9PMxpjVwMFu59+tzbuuW3JQe72HDeth4yR71f0iwvc74cO6UQo8QIsUkn B0/eXinqjVNh5e1t2L5DEyDJYbyUVgJ5gDTlaP/tdJwooG+eol1eGK4O1HEDY4bF q+YT3+Qo7sY1cuaLlqcHKyks4XfQtyqSjWBnvpBJ4=
Received: from mail-yw0-f170.google.com (mail-yw0-f170.google.com [209.85.161.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: annevk@annevk.nl) by homiemail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3781825C063 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-f170.google.com with SMTP id h129so158635214ywb.1 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL1cpHx4l7lKZf8ajVlywymtBDuuvoe8K1+bLLKX/M5qVOiPdGBSgK6Xync7UCwlw2vaagxbs0aNphn7A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.37.109.198 with SMTP id i189mr11278444ybc.171.1457944304635; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.50.78 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 01:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDZQ_dPM76HaAKwvsRaOhdyvbQd+YLOCTR9piBYO2Kt+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMDZQ_dPM76HaAKwvsRaOhdyvbQd+YLOCTR9piBYO2Kt+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:31:44 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CADnb78gBkzjhVRQgzF29hNq4LsCZ=vSu4CJSM9nDWuLVcsOzDw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADnb78gBkzjhVRQgzF29hNq4LsCZ=vSu4CJSM9nDWuLVcsOzDw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/ZWkTyzet2LEg00h4f8vIOUePIvc>
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Websockets sub-protocol registry
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:31:50 -0000

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> RTCWEB re-uses the websockets sub-protocol registry for identifying
> sub-protocols using its data channels.  During discussion on the list, we
> realized that the method by which these are compared is not specified and
> that it is therefore not clear whether IANA could or should register two
> values which differed only in case.
>
> Would anyone object to specifying that IANA should not register two values
> that differed only in case?  Is there a specification which determines
> whether the match is case-sensitive or case-insensitive that we missed?

Why would you assume it to be case-insensitive? Typically any kind of
matching is case-sensitive unless otherwise specified.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/