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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 35B8C1F0CC4 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 G9pClO5nsOSZ for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCD81F0C7F for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 12:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [188.28.132.132] (188.28.132.132.threembb.co.uk [188.28.132.132]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <ThYDfwB=gH-a@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:05:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4E15EF9F.7080001@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:40:47 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
References: <BANLkTi=xgArOEPP2ePmXaSax46T+CQ+Qqj2THgxDLboktjPCgQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110615211401.GG21551@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20110615211401.GG21551@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:05:39 -0000

Hi,

Willy Tarreau wrote:

>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.
>
I've used a slightly modified version of this text:

    In compliance with RFC 2616, header fields in the handshake may be 
sent by
    the client in any order, so the order in which different header fields
    are received is not significant.

>The same point is valid for the response format BTW.
>  
>
Right.

>  
>