Re: [hybi] comments on draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-00

["Anne van Kesteren" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:20:15 +0200, gabriel montenegro  
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>    identified both in the HyBi wg input document
>    [I-D.hixie-thewebsocketprotocol] and in the HyBi mailing list
>    dicussion.
>    REQ. 1:  The WebSocket Protocol MUST run directly on top of a
>       transport protocol (e.g.  TCP, UDP or SCTP, DCCP).
> ---
> No need to say anything, as the point is that whatever HTTP was
> running over should continue to be used after the upgrade. Typically
> this is TCP, yes. So how about rewording thus:
>    REQ. 1:  The WebSocket Protocol MUST run directly on top of
>       the transport over which the initial HTTP handshake was running
>       (typically TCP).

I think the requirement should be removed then. The requirements shouldn't  
constrain us to a HTTP handshake.


> ---
>    REQ. 2:  The WebSocket Protocol MUST be able to handle (send and
>       receive) messages on top of a TCP data stream connection.
> ---
> Suggest rewording:
>    REQ. 2:  The WebSocket Protocol MUST be able to handle (send and
>       receive) messages up to a maximum size (TBD) on top of the  
> transport
>       over which the initial HTTP handshake was running (typically TCP).

Why should we constrain size in the requirements?


>    REQ. 11:  The WebSocket Client MUST be able to request the server,
>       during the handshake, to use a specific WebSocket sub-protocol.
> ---
> Suggest rewording as follows:
>    REQ. 11:  During the handshake ,the WebSocket Client MUST be able
> to send one or more WebSocket sub-protocol proposals to the server
> so that the server can select one.,This results in the use of a specific
> WebSocket sub-protocol.

I don't think this is needed. It's also something that can easily be added  
later if application authors find a need for it.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/