Re: [hybi] Questions and comments on draft-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Mon, 18 July 2011 07:50 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@intalio.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 3A5F921F8AD8 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.754
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.754 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.223, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 rnATb+uFs0tk for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A365321F8ACE for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so2779304vws.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.66.164 with SMTP id g4mr3156503vdt.442.1310975428346; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.115.103 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C26A6A5-DA13-45A3-9DBA-D2515DF923CD@mnot.net>
References: <4C26A6A5-DA13-45A3-9DBA-D2515DF923CD@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:50:28 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NHf6=8-CN_CVUKy=KH7yRcm1_4jzQAf7jt=qpQBeFqbpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org HTTP" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Questions and comments on draft-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10
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: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:50:30 -0000

On 18 July 2011 17:06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> In other words, I'd like to understand things a bit more before making LC comments; there may be good reasons for the few things I saw that raised my eyebrows.

_this response is non-normative_

> 1) I missed the end of the handshake saga; can someone speak to why GET was chosen over, say, OPTIONS? Roy seems to have strong feelings about that (see recent discussion on HTTPbis).

I think we went with GET because Roy was not able to well communicate
his concerns.   He's done a better job in the recent thread in
httpbis, and I now understand that he is concerned about the
outstanding semantic GET.   However I still don't understand why he
thinks OPTION is any better, as it still is a request that requires a
semantic response.   In either case I think that websockets should be
free to define an implicit response (eg 204 No Content) is represented
by a successful handshake.


> 2) The Upgrade token has no version; e.g., from the examples in 1.2:
>    Upgrade: websocket
> Why? The protocol version seems to be carried in the Sec-WebSocket-Version header; could it not be moved (or copied) to the upgrade token?

I think we are only just coming around to the acceptance that we
really do need a version beyond the draft stage.  The version was put
in a header as it was originally only considered needed to distinguish
drafts.  If it is going to be there to stay, then perhaps the
protocol/version format would be better.



regards