IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Multiplexing extension spec draft 03

Joakim Erdfelt <joakim@intalio.com> Wed, 29 February 2012 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <joakim@intalio.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 9B6F321F8598 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:44:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ysGZaDsuHTbx for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E27F21F8585 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so5209621obb.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of joakim@intalio.com designates 10.60.3.72 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.60.3.72;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of joakim@intalio.com designates 10.60.3.72 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=joakim@intalio.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.60.3.72]) by 10.60.3.72 with SMTP id a8mr604351oea.19.1330541088689 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:44:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.72 with SMTP id a8mr519539oea.19.1330541088607; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.52.3 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:44:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAH9hSJb1ewPO3EBgD78anD+=4XouToGR4X7C1wvWqonc2nYB6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9hSJb1ewPO3EBgD78anD+=4XouToGR4X7C1wvWqonc2nYB6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:44:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAG4zZZD=RdbONYzhYwpinzOXeQ+JZTRJ4s4-5z-M7MzZ-SkCjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim@intalio.com>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1ee2af20d2a04ba1ebc3e"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl5p8KNv1mAc4EfwKwPPWBhYndnZXs/Fe/IjEVVCWSlqnqlC23lat3c76UBODmPickZDysQ
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Multiplexing extension spec draft 03
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: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:44:49 -0000

Would it be appropriate to reference RFC6455 Sec 1.3 Opening Handshake in
the section explaining the mux AddChannel request (mux Sec 7.1) headers?

Similar in the way that RFC6455 Sec 1.3 references RFC2616?

--
Joakim Erdfelt
joakim@intalio.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email