Re: [hybi] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6455 (3473)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Adam, this works nicely.

For extra clarity on the key 'MUST' sentence:
OLD:
There MUST be no more than
       one connection in a CONNECTING state.
NEW:
There MUST be no more than
       one connection in the CONNECTING state for any IP and port.

On 15 February 2013 02:35, Adam Rice <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 00:56, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> OK... so how do you folks propose that your ADs resolve this errata
>> report?
>>
>> The options are as follows:
>>
>> 1. It's just wrong, and we should mark it "Rejected".  (This doesn't
>> seem like where you're going.)
>>
>> 2. It's absolutely correct as it is, and we should mark it "Verified".
>>  (It doesn't seem like it's this either.)
>>
>> 3. It's essentially correct, but needs some editing.  You can provide
>> the edits and we can edit it and then mark it "Verified".
>>
>> 4. It's true that there's a problem, but the resolution is beyond the
>> scope of an erratum.  We can either leave it as it is or edit it (to
>> tweak the proposed resolution and/or to explain the difficulty in
>> resolving it), and then mark it "Held for Document Update".
>
>
> I would like to take option 3. I would like to propose the following text to
> clarify the intent of RFC6455 while preserving the meaning:
>
>    2.  If the client already has a WebSocket connection to the same IP
>        address and port pair, even if the remote host is known by another
>        name, the client MUST wait until that connection has been established
>        or for that connection to have failed.  There MUST be no more than
>        one connection in a CONNECTING state.  If multiple connections to the
>        same IP address and port pair are attempted simultaneously, the
>        client MUST serialize them so that there is no more than one
>        connection at a time running through the following steps.
>
> The following paragraph already indicates what must be done in the case
> where the IP address cannot be determined, so this change should not create
> any difficulties in the case where the connection is tunnelled via an
> HTTP(S) or SOCKS5 proxy.
>
> I think the issue that this section creates problems for WebSocket proxies
> and non-browser clients cannot be handled without changing the meaning of
> the text, and so I would like to deal with that separately.
>
> Thank you,
> Adam Rice
>
>