Re: [xmpp] WGLC of draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-02

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 06 June 2014 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C465F1A00FC for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qOWctuVLPTck for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79FE71A0163 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s56Jlsn4099727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:47:56 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5384D9E8.5000601@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:47:54 -0500
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 423776874.06667-c90d196d5be3094769a0e1a6ffde5397
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6FF542E9-904E-4997-936F-D4C61087179A@nostrum.com>
References: <F8275190-9346-4879-9843-A3DF6C604F8C@nostrum.com> <9372C947-DE5D-4115-B1DD-3E1D216C9D62@nostrum.com> <9D46867E-ADA1-4530-AF23-B43AC6E68B3E@andyet.net> <6322B641-3846-4A62-9BBC-0A8A30F50DE6@nostrum.com> <5384D9E8.5000601@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/CH0x-DHvfUpvA3JdKLOXbb33ha8
Cc: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] WGLC of draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-02
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:48:06 -0000

Sorry for the delay. I just returned from a very disconnected vacation.

On May 27, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:

> Connection managers are trusted server components, so the administrators of the service are aware that there is a CM in the mix, but the server need not be (all it knows is that sessions have been created and that some trusted entity did so).
> 
>> Is it assumed to
>> implement this draft?
> 
> The server doesn't really need to implement the websocket aspect of things, since that's handled by the CM.
> 
>> Are we requiring special behavior of the
>> server, without the server knowing it needs to do it?
> 
> Not as far as I can see.

Is there any reason to mention connection managers at all? Unless I missed something, the draft only mentions them parenthetically, but it does so in a normative statement. It's starting to sound like an implementation detail that doesn't need anything normative, if any mention at all.