IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt

Gabriel Montenegro <gmonte@microsoft.com> Thu, 02 September 2010 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <gmonte@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1743A69F7 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id feX7z1Bz5-pf for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE763A68E2 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:21:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:22:00 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.10; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:22:00 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.5.40]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:21:59 -0700
From: Gabriel Montenegro <gmonte@microsoft.com>
To: "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHLSiecTcuCS82oKkqUwTe7FRd7lZL+Nn8AgAABUwCAAAFOAIAAAj2AgAADGID//5bX0A==
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:22:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C110FAFDC99@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <20100901224502.0519B3A687C@core3.amsl.com> <AANLkTikP1CF22fL0rBniXmrxEoBAbTNfzP9kyiNA4nbb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=_1m36ThFZTH_aGE_Unz0KTeexJq_74UGr2j+u@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikmYvJaZnc-SAaGm1Xztn31DqTnttonKFNBvT86@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimHUDGW=XGgjPFG9n+s01Q21e_BvHS+X6VSFUdD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikKHi3Wqy+SgYzk9KxU8o9dpAbEZCQH3UcPkAa_@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikKHi3Wqy+SgYzk9KxU8o9dpAbEZCQH3UcPkAa_@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C110FAFDC99TK5EX14MBXW605w_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 02 Sep 2010 00:21:32 -0000

+1. I’m all for a version as part of the protocol itself, but recognize that the discussion right now is limited to a versioning field only during draft stage.

From: hybi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hybi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Fette (????????)
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:38 PM
To: John Tamplin
Cc: hybi
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt


+1. Adam, I share your concerns about versions on the web, but the reality is there is no other way right now. Suggestions welcome as to alternatives.

On Sep 1, 2010 4:27 PM, "John Tamplin" <jat@google.com<mailto:jat@google.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com<mailto:gregw@webtide.com>> wrote:
>> my proposal was not to add versioning to the protocol - as I know some
>> think it is an anti pattern.
>>
>> I just want to be able to implement the next draft without breaking
>> all my users that have been working on the last draft.   So my
>> proposal is only for a draft version to be added by implementers as
>> non-standard convenience at this time. The lack of a draft version can
>> be taken to mean the final stable version.
>>
>> How else do you expect servers to track the drafts and deal with the
>> various browser implementations out there?
>
> The problem is that the framing of v75, v76, v00, and v01 are
> incompatible. If you want to write a server that interoperates with
> browsers implementing these drafts (I know at least v75 and v76 are in
> the wild), then you have to rely on heuristics to figure out which one
> you are talking to. Even if there isn't a version in the 1.0 spec,
> any attempt to get real-world data while the spec is changing means
> you either have a version number or you heuristically determine one --
> the latter is obviously more prone to error.
>
> I would suggest adding Sec-WebSocket-Draft: 01 to implementations of
> this draft, and that header will only be present before the spec is
> finalized.
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org<mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email