Re: [hybi] draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Wed, 15 June 2011 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <w@1wt.eu>
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 5CB6522800C for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.214
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g4g1umdThhUW for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1wt.eu (1wt.eu [62.212.114.60]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384EC228005 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p5FLE1Ev022092; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:14:01 +0200
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:14:01 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Dan Adkins <dadkins@google.com>
Message-ID: <20110615211401.GG21551@1wt.eu>
References: <BANLkTi=xgArOEPP2ePmXaSax46T+CQ+Qqj2THgxDLboktjPCgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=xgArOEPP2ePmXaSax46T+CQ+Qqj2THgxDLboktjPCgQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt
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, 15 Jun 2011 21:14:07 -0000

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 01:39:41PM -0700, Dan Adkins wrote:
> Comment:
> 
> Sec 1.3. Opening Handshake
> 
>    Headers in the handshake are sent by the client in a random order;
>    the order is not meaningful.
> 
> Saying "random order" here is misleading; it implies that the client
> must shuffle the headers (I understand old versions of the protocol
> required this.)  If the order is not meaningful, then it is perfectly
> fine for an implementation to always send them in the same order.

Good point.

> I think the wording from RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) is clearer:
> 
>    The order in which header fields with differing field names are
>    received is not significant.

Or maybe a mix of both, something around this ?

     Headers in the handshake may be sent by the client in any order,
     so the order in which header fields with differing field names
     are received is not significant.

The same point is valid for the response format BTW.

Willy