IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] what's next

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 02 September 2011 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 56E9221F9000 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 05:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y5PX7O7KyQ8i for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 05:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13CB21F8F38 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 05:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk35 with SMTP id 35so1706911qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 05:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.205.194 with SMTP id fr2mr705134qab.320.1314965218305; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 05:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.79.207 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2011 05:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E60C4FA.8070109@isode.com>
References: <20110831184207.1514.64093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E5E824A.3020101@stpeter.im> <4E5E9440.5070803@gmx.de> <CALiegfkR87Gx-tBJC1hDe8nKHD_Y6KvBM3fOKRj59tzTDHmErg@mail.gmail.com> <4E60C4FA.8070109@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:06:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfm7fJVy8BLxSotT6mr_8uZ5+t-huKhKQEt5NcKpZx=xrg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] what's next
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:05:55 -0000

2011/9/2 Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>:
> I've offered to upgrade ABNF to RFC 5234-style, but our chairs and AD
> thought it was a bit too risky at this point. Something to do for WebSockets
> 1.1.

Could I know why it would be too risky? It changes nothing and makes
implementation easier as it doesn't require the developer to check
"what implied *LWS is in RFC 2616". Current text forces the
implementator looking for "implied *LWS" concept in RFC 2616.

Honestly I don't understand the rationale to keep it.

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email