Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?

Ian Hickson <> Fri, 29 January 2010 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B231A3A687B for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:50:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.639
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.430, BAYES_00=-2.599, PLING_QUERY=1.39]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ydjd4XtTAR8L for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0D53A68DD for <>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F85A15D57A; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:51:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ian Hickson <>
To: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Content-Language: en-GB-hixie
Content-Style-Type: text/css
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: Hybi <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Process! was: [whatwg] HttpOnly cookie for WebSocket?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:50:53 -0000

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, SM wrote:
> It then goes through an IETF-wide Last-Call where there is cross-area 
> review.

I'm certainly all in favour of more review -- I'm not sure limiting it to 
the IETF is necessarily a good plan though. I would hope we would look for 
review from the entire Web community, including Web authors, and members 
of other groups such as the W3C. That is why the WHATWG announced a public 
last call last year and invited feedback from the entire community. If 
there are specific groups we can invite to comment on the spec who are not 
yet aware of the spec, I would be happy to contact them; do you have any 
suggestions on this front?

> It is the consensus at that final stage that matters.

IMHO it's the interoperable implementations that matter, but if we can 
get consensus as well then so much the better.

> > But it doesn't mention the WHATWG, which is working on this spec.
> Yes, it doesn't.  The Working Group would have to recharter if it wants 
> to add that.

If the charter is to be relevant, it seems that acknowledging what is 
actually being done is important. Personally I do not put much stock in 
charters, so it's not a priority for me, but if people are going to refer 
to the charter, then we should make sure they refer to something that 
reflects reality.

> > By whom?
> This charter was discussed on this mailing list by some of the people 
> who are part of the Working Group and that was what they agreed to.

Does it not seem odd that the people who discussed where the spec should 
be edited did not include the person editing the spec?

(I did not at any point see agreement on this list that the HyBi group 
should take over the WHATWG work without working with the WHATWG. I've 
read every e-mail sent to this list since it was created.)

> > One could equally say:
> > 
> > People from the IETF are welcome to participate in the WHATWG process.
> Yes, we could say that.  But the WHATWG process will not get the 
> document published as a RFC.

Getting the document published as an RFC is not a goal. Getting 
interoperable implementations is the goal.

> To put it differently, you will still have to get the document through 
> the IETF process.

That's fine, it's not mutually exclusive with working with the WHATWG.  
HTML5 and many other specs are going through both the W3C and WHATWG 
processes together, and are published simultaneously through both groups.

> > However, instead, I suggest we work together, just like the W3C and 
> > the WHATWG are cooperating on a dozen other specs.
> I think that is an excellent suggestion.  It is unlikely that there can 
> be a formal agreement between the different groups.  However, the 
> individuals may be able to work something out.

I don't see the difference between a formal agreement and individuals 
working something out. I'd be glad to work something out. The first step 
would be to change from the attitude of "the HyBi group is working on this 
and the WHATWG is welcome to work on something similar as well" to "the 
HyBi group and the WHATWG are working together on this".

> > I sent feedback on Wed, 6 Jan 2010, to I received no 
> > reply.
> The IESG reads the feedback.  If I am not mistaken, the IESG generally 
> does not send out individual replies for feedback they receive.

The feedback had no effect on the charter, either.

> > Actually, I was asked to submit it by the IETF. I agreed to do so 
> > while simultaneously publishing it through the WHATWG. At no point was 
> > it suggested that the WHATWG should stop working on it.
> The WHATWG can continue working on the specifications.  This Working 
> Group will probably work on their own version of the specification too.  

No, that's not "working together".

> The outcome will be two different specifications for the same 
> technology.  I don't think that is in the interest of the Internet 
> community.

It's not. Let's work together to create one set of normative requirements, 
not two.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'