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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 06 June 2014 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 C41C21A0225 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 izyhJaubrOWh for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495121A0207 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (unknown [24.8.129.242]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F62E40D01; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:50:22 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <53921B7C.8080403@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:50:20 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@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> <6FF542E9-904E-4997-936F-D4C61087179A@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <6FF542E9-904E-4997-936F-D4C61087179A@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/n23C6PgXz2LiDhsMjyvFwsTwPvY
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 19:50:30 -0000

On 6/6/14, 1:47 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 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.

It is in fact an implementation detail.

Peter