[hybi] WebSocket Version Numbers

"Bob Gezelter" <gezelter@rlgsc.com> Tue, 21 June 2011 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <gezelter@rlgsc.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 1BFDD11E80B1 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K1LH7qWd2-PB for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpoutwbe09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpoutwbe09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [208.109.78.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6925711E808D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28147 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2011 13:10:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (72.167.218.134) by smtpoutwbe09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 21 Jun 2011 13:10:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 2628 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2011 13:10:37 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 162.83.149.110
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.5.05
Message-Id: <20110621061036.ef1fc80126c74c6c202a919c41c7bb0b.7a63d337a6.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
From: "Bob Gezelter" <gezelter@rlgsc.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:10:36 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: [hybi] WebSocket Version Numbers
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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:10:50 -0000

I?aki, Julian, Salvatore, and all,

Some may consider version number information an anti-pattern, but I
believe that this belief is misplaced.

Version numbering becomes a problem when it is a stalking horse for poor
design and very incompatible dialects. It is these fundamental
incompatibilities that are the true anti-pattern. Properly implemented
version number identification is an important tool for troubleshooting
problems caused by the need to maintain backward compatible operations
with a wide collection of client and server systems, who almost
certainly cannot be upgraded on a synchronized schedule.

Indeed, systems that externally implement version number based
restrictions experience far fewer problems than systems without such
checks.

I would suggest that the final accepted RFC use a major/minor revision
scheme of 1.0. A future RFC would have a revision number of 2.0.
Intermediate drafts would have a minor version increment (e.g., 1.1,
1.2, ...).

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com