Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for data channel drafts - sub-protocol usage

[Christian Groves <[e-mail]>]

The definition of Token is ASCII not UTF-8.

Christian

On 5/07/2014 3:23 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2014, at 07:46, Christian Groves <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Do you need that statement?
> I guess formally you don't. But having it make it simpler for the reader...
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>> [RFC6455] section 11.5 says:
>>
>>    Subprotocol Identifier
>>       The identifier of the subprotocol, as will be used in the
>>       |Sec-WebSocket-Protocol| header field registered in Section 11.3.4
>>       of this specification.  The value must conform to the requirements
>>       given in item 10 of Section 4.1 of this specification -- namely,
>>       the value must be a token as defined by RFC 2616 [RFC2616].
>>
>> "Token" is RFC2616 is defined as:
>>      CHAR           = <any US-ASCII character (octets 0 - 127)>
>>      token          = 1*<any CHAR except CTLs or separators>
>>
>> Regards, Christian
>>
>> On 12/06/2014 3:24 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> I agree that we need to keep text about the encoding.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Michael Tuexen [[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2014 5:28 PM
>>> To: Christer Holmberg
>>> Cc: Ted Hardie; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC for data channel drafts - sub-protocol usage
>>>
>>> On 10 Jun 2014, at 21:22, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> A comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-06:
>>>>
>>>> Section 5.1 says:
>>>>
>>>> "Protocol: Variable Length (sequence of characters)
>>>>        The sub-protocol for the channel as a UTF-8 encoded string.  If
>>>>        this is an empty string the protocol is unspecified.  If it is a
>>>>        non-empty string, it specifies an protocol registered in the
>>>>        'WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry' created in [RFC6455]."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think "The sub-protocol for the channel as a UTF-8 encoded string." part is a little confusing, because there is no such thing as sub-protocol in DCEP itself (DCEP only uses the WebSocket sub-protocol registry for registering DCEP *protocol* values).
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we could just remove the sentence, and keep:
>>>>
>>>> "Protocol: Variable Length (sequence of characters)
>>>>        If this is an empty string the protocol is unspecified.  If it is a
>>>>        non-empty string, it specifies an protocol registered in the
>>>>        'WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry' created in [RFC6455]."
>>>>
>>>> Section 4 gives more information about the usage of the protocol.
>>> Do you intend to drop the statement about the UTF-8 encoding?
>>> I think we should keep a statement about the encoding.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Michael
>>>> (Alternatively, we could use sub-protocol terminology also in DCEP)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Christer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: rtcweb [[e-mail]] on behalf of Ted Hardie [[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 10 June, 2014 9:52 PM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: [rtcweb] WGLC for data channel drafts
>>>>
>>>> Dear WG,
>>>>
>>>> This starts a working group last call for our core Data Channel drafts:
>>>>
>>>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-06.txt
>>>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-10.txt
>>>>
>>>> Please review them in detail, especially for areas which may be of concern to the broader IETF community.  This WGLC will end on June 27, 2014.
>>>>
>>>> Ted, Sean, Cullen
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>