Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

[Adam Barth <[e-mail]>]

That's the most up-to-date version.

Adam


On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Brian <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Adam, since it's been a while and I've lost the link to the new
> handshake proposal, can you verify for me (and others) that this is
> the most up-to-date version that I should be reading?
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-websocket-handshake-01
>
>
> Thanks,
> Brian McKelvey
> Worlize, Inc.
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Scott Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Adam Barth wrote:
>>>
>>> 2010/11/29 Scott Ferguson <[e-mail]>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adam Barth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This change is already incorporated in the current version of
>>>>> draft-abarth-websocket-handshake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This really shows the disadvantage of the "procedural" style of spec
>>>> writing. By obfuscating the intention of the spec, you make it difficult
>>>> to see changes or to evaluate what the proposal is doing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed.  We should be able to get all the editorial issues sorted out
>>> once we've got consensus on the technical issues.  For the time being,
>>> draft-abarth-websocket-handshake just matches the editorial style of
>>> the corresponding section of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol.
>>>
>>
>> You're missing the point.
>>
>> It's hard to evaluate the proposal for technical purposes the way you've
>> written it. Many of the people on this list, including me, are very busy
>> people and really don't have the time to wade through a proposal that's
>> deliberately written in an obfuscatory fashion.
>>
>> The problem has nothing to do with the final language; it's about
>> communicating proposals for the people on this list.
>>
>> -- Scott
>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hybi mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>>
>