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

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> Thu, 09 June 2011 00:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7357611E80AA for <>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-1uCVAkftdy for <>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 14EF511E809E for <>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Jun 2011 00:22:05 -0000
Received: from (EHLO HIVE) [] by (mp071) with SMTP; 09 Jun 2011 02:22:05 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18T8/IIsA0Tb7VPcyzzZlmu2GYQ/NhpCYMvGZobYV pj4mb0JkzI5D0i
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
To: Gabriel Montenegro <>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 02:22:10 +0200
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "" <>, Greg Wilkins <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:22:11 -0000

* Gabriel Montenegro wrote:
>About compression: Greg already expressed this feeling on the mailing
>list and there was very strong opposition. At this point, I’d rather we 
>not make such big changes. Let’s limit 09 to nits and typos.

I don't care much about the next draft, but at some point we'll need a
draft that addresses the known issues, so we can then have a working
group last call to be sure that that the known issues have indeed been
addressed so we can then ask the IESG to consider the document for pub-
lication. When should we make the big changes to compression so we can
move forward on that issue?

(It is possible you might mean that the next draft is meant as just a
bit of polish as last step before an IETF Last Call, so we are really
past a point where we would consider "big changes". I do not believe
that is the case, we haven't, for instance, been getting any comments
from the W3C who work on the browser API for Websockets, on the
document, that I've seen anyway; and I haven't done any review in April
when you announced a Last Call myself, since we still had to make "big
changes" like to compression at that point. Overall, there has been a
distinct lack of review of the document so far. Greg Wilkins noted he
found the Last Call premature. I very much agree.)

As an aside, I am not aware of any opposition to address the security
concerns I noted with respect to `deflate-stream` back in April.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·