IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Multiplexing in WebSocket (Was: HyBi Design Space)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 15 October 2009 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3081128C17C for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uyBZ3F3i3jKZ for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B3F128C165 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Beta0/8.14.4.Beta0) with ESMTP id n9FICZZn026443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1255630363; x=1255716763; bh=QZouMdDLnUoSfGS54DWEanT9b+VyW32IdhQUNAL/zmc=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=tW8V4KJBC1CMnxAlRxR/pZ07QOl5p88iCQXZd1nB50lDGVRq5mqUhyPc1wYmE1Mb5 aZwi+yz96QnyRXmw772Z1+zhF5X/LIdSbHBy8cBOpX9EkgM4VjMIdgmZnfPSoft0eU 13/BhvoRStLITY8O1qJv6K5cKsGpt0iTozrpIAj4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=bAuAf9DAntEEWbgt1hvEwDK/tNYShsPREo95hrwqnbxpYWMuC4qhdxgQy0w9gi+20 0ZFywqjgpC+arWT/34kI/C+FJCkQf/3bFQyO1605PsORbpn3nrpYRRqkJzYTMXUht3b tLE5Nl4XyButP4fAj6fcef4LY37NaQ46ldiyylQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20091015105341.045fddf0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:10:25 -0700
To: hybi@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910141226080.3716@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
References: <4ACE50A2.5070404@ericsson.com> <3a880e2c0910081600v3607665dp193f6df499706810@mail.gmail.com> <4ACF4055.6080302@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910092116010.21884@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AD2E353.8070609@webtide.com> <4AD2F43D.6030202@ninebynine.org> <4AD39A64.4080405@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910132335390.25383@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AD5A2FA.5030805@gmx.de> <20091014102102.GH29862@sideshowbarker> <4AD5B1A6.8020107@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910141202490.3716@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AD5BDD7.70805@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910141226080.3716@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [hybi] Multiplexing in WebSocket (Was: HyBi Design Space)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:12:43 -0000

At 05:29 14-10-2009, Ian Hickson wrote:
>Unless I'm mistaken, the IETF does not have a policy of ignoring feedback
>that comes from outside the IETF, so I don't see why the above would make
>this difficult. Did you have a specific rule in mind?
>
>(It would be pretty stupid to ignore outside feedback!)

You are missing the point of Julian Reschke's message.  The contents 
of this message should not be considered as legal advice.

The process is covered by BCP 9 and a few other 
RFCs.  "Contributions" posted to the IETF mailing lists are subject 
to BCP 78 and BCP 79.  It is up to the authors to see that their 
Internet-Drafts are in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 
and BCP 79.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email