IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6455 (3473)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 05 February 2013 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 DE5A721F87A6 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 05:00:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.87
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 XAlPBEykYMh5 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 05:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00EDB21F865B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 05:00:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id es5so95548wgb.29 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 05:00:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hqL5bDwI1q2YPNinPDUttHAIM1Lu/kbEDR5on0NdmNM=; b=IWK2IWfC+ziTCPa5SllMNSlgLTGJ7qAWsBFGOsZfA1sQaeR7dxXDLyKXvycUaAV5sf O7MeHUznvJPJXSqYvWRBCFywokTG54QApnDMQCDpUG+6gcpGYfQJBY598Z1YKUDqovLq SMA8ap6N+ajlDUj2DquFwUITFOs2bQ5dGdnr+Uz+e9dczLz/ScncFBfGCxJTc6mSXg/p sGrnWfzj3RTaaQ1WJwrmiIRnYQfT+h7K9BHCL62uMk8lgO4l5ikG8wiNY7/QjCLdC0FX qYmp9CakF9DoIXhfKWMHx8I066cgtm6sKUR8dpNic11LPwVaHTZQzf1rKyWYyhsvmwXQ Uv5Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.80.35 with SMTP id o3mr17175399wix.9.1360069227815; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 05:00:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.5.135 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 05:00:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.5.135 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 05:00:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHixhFpR7SPWoiQrduDa5oDnss0GPQKa4ptroD0dVgP4+v7OqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130201073846.78956B1E003@rfc-editor.org> <CABkgnnVO_qfFAKY28y_VL5vjXdUYtuAV5vNtFLpAFUk9zPiJkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHixhFpR7SPWoiQrduDa5oDnss0GPQKa4ptroD0dVgP4+v7OqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:00:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUkq0bzVbq1Np=S03JHMtCatZ9GFwo2atnRxda_ukuLUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Adam Rice <ricea@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044287f231a25504d4f9cb9a"
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, ifette+ietf@google.com, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6455 (3473)
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, 05 Feb 2013 13:00:38 -0000

That is approximately where my reasoning lead. I think that the *safe*
option is to have one connection per name.
On Feb 4, 2013 3:20 AM, "Adam Rice" <ricea@google.com> wrote:

> On 1 February 2013 23:27, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this "host and port" or "IP and port" ?  That too is unclear.  If
>> I'm sharding a.example.com and b.example.com and they are served on
>> the same VIP, is the expectation that wss://a.example.com/ and
>> wss://b.example.com/ can't have concurrent connection attempts?
>
>
> I was assuming that in the first sentence the text "connection to the
> remote host (IP address) ... even if the remote host is known by another
> name" made the interpretation of "IP address" unambiguous.
>
> But section 4.1 says that /host/ is defined in section 3, and section 3
>  actually defines /host/ as "host = <host, defined in [RFC3986],
> Section 3.2.2 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2>>", ie.
> the host portion of the URI.
>
> So now I don't know.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email