IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Straw poll: Do you miss interjectable WebSocket level control frame? (was: Re: Discontinuation of mux ...)

Peter Thorson <webmaster@zaphoyd.com> Fri, 28 February 2014 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <webmaster@zaphoyd.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7091A02BE for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:17:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fx3JUVrzI8u8 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from authsmtp00.uchicago.edu (authsmtp00.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1788E1A0325 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ranna.uchicago.edu (ranna.uchicago.edu [128.135.45.206]) (Authenticated sender: zaphoyd) by authsmtp00.uchicago.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A258449805E; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:16:58 -0600 (CST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_12790FBE-C3CA-41F4-85BB-B445A01FCE34"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Peter Thorson <webmaster@zaphoyd.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH9hSJbEJpUeDjpNsroUZ1CuD+Jifq5qakCjmfviZjSgvHBmrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:16:57 -0600
Message-Id: <AE8FD8AD-C52F-4E6C-9229-7990402C9414@zaphoyd.com>
References: <CAH9hSJbjQNKnZTJmBFtU8MgmnRTYjPopC4oP_78bWUGap-9CvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJbBmvNPBSSAk-khdWXgWw0GTt0FG3KsdzYeJcfiAPDk0A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHixhFq=wfmYH8-ij_WtsQLN=NUTJwRQ=k8jCPepQDM8V8ZZYA@mail.gmail.com> <CABihn6EN7V6XEwf6NWn78orxvr3XjGHxROJC4JjQ6RYYKEeCug@mail.gmail.com> <CACuKZqHNoR5GQmWyzbXAszZCOT2P4pjSmT3SF6ZG3X7hTY=1xw@mail.gmail.com> <CABihn6GC4VM2AHza-F7ML=FfHLZu7FNqx+BhbuVsfJLWk0P92w@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJbSfQ2Abp6oLifi0dx4TZENzm2QRn8zMQfAv=vw+H12sw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1402261734120.31525@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <CAH9hSJZs01ZuimkLWat8Au+HZ5MPp33x+V5CTbG9OUia=S-8Jw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1402261756240.31525@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <CAH9hSJbEJpUeDjpNsroUZ1CuD+Jifq5qakCjmfviZjSgvHBmrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/cxMhoNpTL-8ta9Inh6PsB34l8PQ
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Straw poll: Do you miss interjectable WebSocket level control frame? (was: Re: Discontinuation of mux ...)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:17:04 -0000

To clarify here. This is a decision made that affects the W3C browser API only, correct? It does not imply that injecting a close frame into the outgoing message to cleanly cancel and exit is violating RFC6455?

On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:08 , Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, it's kinda twist.
> >
> > But also it's not strange that people wonder if close frame interjection
> > like this is ok or not. Actually, even ping/pong sending are not
> > explicitly allowed to be inserted between "Send a WebSocket Message"
> > algorithm.
> 
> If it's unclear, we should update the protocol spec to make it clear.
> 
> 
> I can't file a ticket.
> 
> Sal, could you file a ticket for this for update in the future?
>  
> 
> > > If you send a bunch of messages, then start the closing handshake,
> > > then the messages should all be sent. I don't think there's anything
> > > in either spec that would allow the handshake to jump ahead.
> >
> > It would be nice if you add some note to the API spec to say "queuing"
> > doesn't have any implication that the closing handshake can jump in in
> > response to Zhong's question above.
> 
> Can you file a bug explaining specifically what needs clarifying at the
> API level? I'll get to it ASAP (I'm in the middle of an edit on focus
> navigation, so I can't fix it right now). http://whatwg.org/newbug
> 
> Thanks. Filed.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24824

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email