Re: [hybi] -09: IANA considerations

Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com> Fri, 17 June 2011 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ifette@google.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 D444C9E805F for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fJsX+IqL+tsz for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5619E8030 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.80]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p5HK7Oox013719 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:24 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1308341244; bh=jaaKbvZXSfKBSYZel9xUwm7Fp2M=; h=MIME-Version:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=YGDOoA3Ef3FL9CrbyOTTyvJbs8NwllmVA6vQefZ+PDImEaH2GkgTUNanRewBjcut4 yX87JDJjRawX3zqtkqccQ==
Received: from iwl42 (iwl42.prod.google.com [10.241.67.234]) by kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p5HK7NHs008896 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:23 -0700
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so89848iwl.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mvKgorNS8Lt8H8/ne9nmPAD3N3NhTfBO6/SEKfzR/JU=; b=s5sPX1WaEGIrY3X/ICuXE96ErymiwdZMoKqizEjDGp2s0+kZdlDw7HC38h0zG22XNe Nh0Gzg2NHcMkboFnt5IA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=R44r0xWikvvmkhh96NhmqL7vSD92FN8xeqhIno9P+wlf8yG9k7fOkHkWQuwH8w6eLA /IjEjWbw8ALLxQ4lC8fw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.108.69 with SMTP id g5mr2548072icp.184.1308341242898; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.33.8 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DFB8E07.60908@stpeter.im>
References: <4DFB8E07.60908@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:07:22 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=6_1H_cTTXRh00v1LM=E_1LUCq9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?SWFuIEZldHRlICjjgqTjgqLjg7Pjg5Xjgqfjg4Pjg4bjgqMp?= <ifette@google.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303bfb520728e704a5edef4b
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] -09: IANA considerations
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ifette@google.com
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: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:07:26 -0000

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>wrote;wrote:

> Sections 11.1 and 11.2 both say:
>
>      Characters in the host component that are excluded by the syntax
>      defined above MUST be converted from Unicode to ASCII by applying
>      the IDNA ToASCII algorithm to the Unicode host name, with both the
>      AllowUnassigned and UseSTD3ASCIIRules flags set, and using the
>      result of this algorithm as the host in the URI.  [RFC3490]
>
> RFC 3490 has been obsoleted by RFC 5890 and RFC 5891. We'll need to
> modernize this text.
>
> Sections 11. and 11.2 both say:
>
>   Interoperability considerations.
>      None.
>
> However, the template in RFC 4395 says:
>
>   Interoperability considerations.
>      If you are aware of any details regarding your scheme that might
>      impact interoperability, please identify them here.  For example:
>      proprietary or uncommon encoding method; inability to support
>      multibyte character sets; incompatibility with types or versions
>      of any underlying protocol.
>
> Now, Section 5.1 of the WebSocket spec says:
>
>   2.   The Method of the request MUST be GET and the HTTP version MUST
>        be at least 1.1.
>
> So it seems that the interoperability considerations of our URI
> registration requests might need to say something about incompability
> with HTTP 1.0.
>
> Section 11.6 mentions private use tokens beginning with "x-". Ick. :)
>
> Typo in Section 11.10: "Paragraph 10 of Paragraph 4 of Section 5.1 "
>

Sadly this one is not a typo - that's a deeply nested section... :(


>
> Section 11.12 says that assignment of WebSocket Version Numbers shall be
> "RFC Required", but then requests assignment of version numbers 0-8 to
> prior submissions of this Internet-Draft. The requested assignments are
> at odds with the stated policy.
>

RFC Required is different from Standards Action. RFC Publication (either as
an IETF submission or as an RFC editor independent submission) suffices.
Standards Action requires Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG. My
understanding from this as that an I-D counts as an IETF submission?


>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>