Re: [hybi] -09: IANA considerations

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 21 June 2011 22:02 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 020A311E812C for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.515, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 wFeEhyeDgUVp for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3AF11E80D5 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [188.29.183.175] (188.29.183.175.threembb.co.uk [188.29.183.175]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <TgEU9ABqW8bV@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:02:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4E0114E4.7070008@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:02:12 +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: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
References: <4DFB8E07.60908@stpeter.im> <BANLkTi=6_1H_cTTXRh00v1LM=E_1LUCq9g@mail.gmail.com> <4898.1308659426.327742@puncture> <4E00D8B2.6090409@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E00D8B2.6090409@stpeter.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] -09: IANA considerations
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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:02:34 -0000

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

>On 6/21/11 6:30 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>  
>
>>On Fri Jun 17 21:07:22 2011, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
>>><stpeter@stpeter.im>wroteter.im>wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Section 11.12 says that assignment of WebSocket Version Numbers shall be
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>"RFC Required", but then requests assignment of version numbers 0-8 to
>>>>prior submissions of this Internet-Draft. The requested assignments are
>>>>at odds with the stated policy.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>RFC Required is different from Standards Action. RFC Publication
>>>(either as
>>>an IETF submission or as an RFC editor independent submission) suffices.
>>>Standards Action requires Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG. My
>>>understanding from this as that an I-D counts as an IETF submission?
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, but it only counts as an RFC once it's published...
>>
>>The solution is to assign these to this document, but note in this
>>section that versions 1-8 are older versions.
>>
>>One might even ask IANA to maintain a note saying that, when creating
>>the registry.
>>
>>That all said, it's not clear to me this really needs a registry, or why
>>one might want to allow independant stream RFCs to define a new version
>>number - that effectively means that the next version of WebSockets
>>might not be an IETF protocol at all. In contrast with the other
>>registries - which seem reasonable - allowing random people to invent
>>new and conflicting versions seems like a recipe for chaos.
>>
>>I'd have thought that we want standards-track here, and in any case, the
>>version numbers would be handled by Obsoletes/Updates perfectly well.
>>    
>>
>
>Seems reasonable, yes.
>
I tend to agree with the "cause chaos" argument, so Standards Track RFC or IETF Consensus (i.e. any RFC in the IETF Stream) is Ok.

I would still prefer to have a registry, as some people (especially people not doing IETF standards for long time) are not as skilled as others in navigating chains of references. But I don't feel strongly enough about this.

My 2p.