Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 02 February 2010 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 47E3A3A69CA for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:47:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 3Xhx5kYVMYxi for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:47:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933783A6982 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:47:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o120m7xw015578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:48:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1265071701; x=1265158101; bh=675cTEFTzAxhie6xcLCouS/vD7cR5HGiDOmHhe+4Hu4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=FzFglpZ+AxAdjQ54bzGGA7vfHTNvsMOSTnMqgeNaxXwBwYcssCD0ndOen06LVTGws uyQjXeik0n2RpFCVqrxgwF2Hj5UBkAErZPXPPzTKcpL6jTa7ADARjf0m/ujs317GG6 325G/C6rWUXrjC8/cHzrxmqQuKWRz/y9qHXORuK4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=XnAu1BpyrKSe8duD9QD8cg+UeuXG58pxkJqMsM11NnK5DpeIo/BScwxBiduW0LJkv JGn3OSDbMq0VjMue7hX4I6DHYqyMt+MftU1HCnJtwqnCumjV22el42q8aazF/+dbpAT sCkqViGYQ2WRZINCGJLIMsdUMkZQH/rCknYy8y8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100201163955.09373f40@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:47:57 -0800
To: hybi@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020027000.3846@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
References: <9124e09b0911052218y5106a2d4qcda01ff67577679b@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912032337580.15540@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4B1905FC.1000205@verizon.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001300901270.22027@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B6466EB.2090909@gmx.de> <4B656465.1080005@airemix.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020027000.3846@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [hybi] US-ASCII vs. ASCII in Web Socket Protocol
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:47:47 -0000

At 16:30 01-02-10, Ian Hickson wrote:
>I used "ANSI_X3.4-1968" because that's the canonical name for US-ASCII,
>and I used RFC1345 because that's the canonical reference. If you disagree
>with these choices, please update the IANA registry.

Julian Reschke is correct; RFC 1345 should not be used as a normative 
reference.  Please use the reference that he suggested ([ANSI.X3-4.1986]).

Regards,
-sm