Re: [hybi] -09: IANA considerations

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