Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Tue, 12 July 2011 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.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 854D021F912D; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 2I3CqiKy64jC; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E26A21F9110; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so4543720bwb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VdyuQTeOV4DrFUwy+DhXZ8byGYlpidF/d1t6w3vv7es=; b=sDRMGDsrsSI4kTMxPIgqPCRljNIFMxCZHc9Nm7asjc6JHpknZTd7ZO/lccZ06wfTjs BSHitT9f4RZY1M4h08FdBrmcOLu6ELwss2LQamDLbGTUTcFVqGD656ZhetIm84VMRwCB KUkiR5RmQArVbVbp1KGl8fojngmE74lEWrd38=
Received: by 10.204.79.194 with SMTP id q2mr3111775bkk.181.1310462447905; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g13sm10186937bkd.10.2011.07.12.02.20.45 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E1C121B.2070601@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:21:31 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E1BD054.7010103@gmail.com> <4E1BF0D6.4090702@gmx.de> <4E1C0F63.8060206@gmail.com> <4E1C108E.7010800@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E1C108E.7010800@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:24:46 -0700
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
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, 12 Jul 2011 09:20:51 -0000

12.07.2011 12:14, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-07-12 11:09, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Section 5.2.2, bullet 3, sub-bullet 4. When defining the ABNF for a
>>>> header, the header name should be included in it as well. So the first
>>>> line should be:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Why?
>> There is the following formulation:
>>
>>> The 'Foo' headers takes the form of <foo-header> ABNF rules below:
>>>
>>> foo-header = *(APHA/DIGIT)
>
> It should say: "The 'Foo' header field's value takes the form..."
This will eliminate the problem.  Currently we have:

> The ABNF of this header is defined as follows:

not its entity.
>
>> will result in the message headers like:
>>
>>> Upgrade: TLS/1.2
>>> Connection: Upgrade
>>> gfr134
>>
>> and "gfr134" will be the 'Foo' header. "foo-header = "Foo:"
>> *(APHA/DIGIT)" will result in valid:
>>
>>> Upgrade: TLS/1.2
>>> Connection: Upgrade
>>> Foo: gfr134
>>
>> See also eg. RFC 3282, RFC 2616.
>
> Have a look at the HTTPbis drafts.
They should also be clear about whether they mean the header field or 
the header field's entity.
>
>>
>>>
>>> [ . . . ]
>>>
>>> That being said, it might be a good idea to revisit the choice of
>>> syntax, or at least to clarify the LWS situation.
>> The document may reference the httpbis-p1 where the <n>#<m>rule
>> extension will be described for valid ABNF. See
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-15#section-1.2.1 
>>
>
> It could, but my guess is that HyBi doesn't want to wait for HTTPbis.
That's up to them.

Mykyta
>
>> ...
>
> Best regards, Julian
>