Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-07-12 11:09, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> ...
>>> Section 5.2.2, bullet 3, sub-bullet 4. When defining the ABNF for a
>>> header, the header name should be included in it as well. So the first
>>> line should be:
>>> ...
>>
>> Why?
> There is the following formulation:
>
>> The 'Foo' headers takes the form of <foo-header> ABNF rules below:
>>
>> foo-header = *(APHA/DIGIT)

It should say: "The 'Foo' header field's value takes the form..."

> will result in the message headers like:
>
>> Upgrade: TLS/1.2
>> Connection: Upgrade
>> gfr134
>
> and "gfr134" will be the 'Foo' header. "foo-header = "Foo:"
> *(APHA/DIGIT)" will result in valid:
>
>> Upgrade: TLS/1.2
>> Connection: Upgrade
>> Foo: gfr134
>
> See also eg. RFC 3282, RFC 2616.

Have a look at the HTTPbis drafts.

>
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>
>> That being said, it might be a good idea to revisit the choice of
>> syntax, or at least to clarify the LWS situation.
> The document may reference the httpbis-p1 where the <n>#<m>rule
> extension will be described for valid ABNF. See
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-15#section-1.2.1

It could, but my guess is that HyBi doesn't want to wait for HTTPbis.

> ...

Best regards, Julian