Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protocols
Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> Fri, 05 March 2010 18:34 UTC
Return-Path: <jamie@shareable.org>
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 419843A8DB0 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:34:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, 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 XGsp7S0V6BAa for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:34:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.shareable.org (mail2.shareable.org [80.68.89.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4C43A8405 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:34:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1NncML-00089t-M2; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:34:49 +0000
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:34:49 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <20100305183449.GA31182@shareable.org>
References: <4B8ECA2D.4050303@ericsson.com> <4B9118DC.6030301@webtide.com> <4B91311F.20109@ericsson.com> <4B9135C1.50304@webtide.com> <4B913FFD.5040500@ericsson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B913FFD.5040500@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protocols
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: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:34:51 -0000
Salvatore Loreto wrote: > On 03/05/2010 06:48 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote: > >Salvatore Loreto wrote: > > > >>here we are talking about *protocol* requirements > >>it is not the right place to discuss about the actual solution(s). > >> > >I thought I was? > > > >Isn't it important to have a definition of what an extension > >is (including who is doing the extension) as part of the requirements? > > > > > it is more important have a *reason* for the proposed requirement, > definition can mislead and be interpreted as a different requirement or > a solution. Well, in regard to extensions, it's not _just_ about the relationship with the Javascript API. Other things like opportunistic connection sharing, aggregators and SSL offload may be completely invisible to the API (and therefore have no relationship with it), but still need the base protocol to guarantee to behave in a particular way. > at moment we do not have any requirement that talk about the > relation with WebSocket API... and to tell the true I am a bit > surprised W3C WebApps has not proposed any requirements. If you read Ian's recent responses, many of them talk about the relationship with the API driving specific features or lack thereof. Even though the queries leading to those responses were from implementors who aren't using the API and therefore aren't constrained by it. I think there is quite some confusion at the moment, among various people, about which parts of the WebSocket protocol are free to be used by implementors - especially the type bytes. That has some relationship with the API. Those people expecting to use application-specific type bytes aren't using the API, but the API is given as a reason why they should not do it. This reflects some confusion between constraints due to the API, and constraints from the protocol definition which should be explicit, but are implied by the API. > I'll start a separate trade about it It's a good idea, thanks. -- Jamie
- [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protocols Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… KOMATSU Kensaku
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… KOMATSU Kensaku
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protoc… KOMATSU Kensaku