IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-08.txt

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Thu, 09 June 2011 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tyoshino@google.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 ACBF211E8084 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.223
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 EtG2wHv1cPrT for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337A811E80D9 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.1]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p593LTms024990 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:21:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1307589689; bh=qA0QayenOD3mOX7zwHGYvm3GNZ4=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=g6+vJvE/6iVmWmZBkhDEdsqqwVeXKBIFgGGBgRKkjUcVBk5WetLGGWVgUNDmjLGfH Sx/TTJ+NGMYMUpKoMclkg==
Received: from ywf9 (ywf9.prod.google.com [10.192.6.9]) by hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p593KQYS022003 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:21:27 -0700
Received: by ywf9 with SMTP id 9so856475ywf.22 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=RcQE7uk6xt+BNiCBB7EvmksIZtFnbXmeQzxmEuY++DE=; b=nt5N3zZv5JIfl5Qk1F+qcO8ToDhOPH5K38AEV0VAY7YiR0ecmwBsFB0gun1/gRpza8 5PkuTfSiX1ZmTaJEMfNg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=lDvAPt7+SJ9Dnaj8qMsx0rJh+Ei6LzQHL5BM/EbYqcBqAVdIigZiVXavCdoJBoOBZO iuwllqdXwwBJ4MCS/vpg==
Received: by 10.150.208.8 with SMTP id f8mr1517708ybg.399.1307589687139; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.50.13 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimJSAF8NVEP87AG0u8Shzvk+p12RA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110608173012.14596.50398.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BANLkTi=AsE_jHV_tMTEZEcaLnQZCBMp_jA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimJSAF8NVEP87AG0u8Shzvk+p12RA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:21:07 +0900
Message-ID: <BANLkTikD-WFE+uctHGovg9atezSd9nEe_N6aLsog5X65pS2xkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cdf1a60d05ccb04a53ef214"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-08.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, 09 Jun 2011 03:21:32 -0000

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 08:23, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
>
>>  * The fragments of one message may not be interleaved between the
>
> fragments of another message unless an extension has been negotiated
>> that can interpret the interleaving.
>>
>
> anyone else have thoughts here? it seems reasonable to me but I'd like to
> hear other opinions.
>

I think it's good for clarification (though when we read the fragmentation
spec, it's clear that interleaving doesn't work without extension).

It's a small edit.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email