IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Thu, 02 September 2010 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E313A6BD5 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id blbtT21uNLne for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765383A6BD8 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.12]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o82HNecM004625 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:23:40 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1283448220; bh=5acqhsKMQgYgMgYNx2xS/XXyzFk=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=TgKJ77c/xE9Ln9KhhdP8ROl3z1ds3h197VRAeCFBcIZeTxvzkt+f21cxy/FytsnW8 anH7aZpNqm9+966bYk2Gg==
Received: from yxl31 (yxl31.prod.google.com [10.190.3.223]) by hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o82HN4eX013771 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:23:39 -0700
Received: by yxl31 with SMTP id 31so263754yxl.3 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Obo/8nATlKzK2YpZmzmIh9imu43eGAFwyCKBfPoCr9o=; b=CS5d0LnUBrGxwZ05qxV4sXsizN1dNe+jJdvrnhWCUfVUZGeEGzL2NqEOGeQCkSiNzn 12dNKcE4wJEQYSFnCEMg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=A9jGoyRBhKqhB8ECeANaolBI9XbBbg1cjbJZc3+CJNvU5+eTnIzE++ZSUNPS5wuZCw r6sfbSRSp8u7DOBe+FVA==
Received: by 10.150.203.5 with SMTP id a5mr378034ybg.437.1283448218742; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.103.4 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C110FAFE4D7@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <20100901224502.0519B3A687C@core3.amsl.com> <4C7F8EE7.1040106@opera.com> <4C7F92D1.20106@gmx.de> <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C110FAFE4D7@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:23:18 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3tR36gUr-3zvntpycdeyxbvkvzipV9fMHfHej@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gabriel Montenegro <gmonte@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:49:45 -0000

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Gabriel Montenegro
<gmonte@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The real issue here is that MUST is the right keyword if something is required for interoperability. A SHOULD means you are recommended to do a certain thing, but you may depart from that recommendation if you know better or have a good reason. MAY is for optional stuff.
>
> My take on it is that the basic framing is absolutely a MUST. Optional stuff like multiplexing or compression are MAYs (when and if we get to them). Fragmentation support sounds like a SHOULD.

I think fragmentation has to be optional for the sender, and mandatory
for the receiver.  So, I think that is a sender MAY fragment a message
and a receiver MUST be prepared to receive fragmented messages.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email