[xmpp] AD review of draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 20 June 2014 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C51F1B28EC for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJzL2OMknyKU for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com (mail-oa0-f47.google.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 435081B2905 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n16so7887811oag.6 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=84e4jJoUmJXVnJS1awI10/b/CQ29OCG6oZvWhqqGg3M=; b=Sl7zgbNK8avQyJvdwDWgWSaG37/2wjc3jExHh3U3o4+ScL86AfTw3XBVGQe+4cF2gv /2vYpDLpbRFhU0hBhMlt0XA1WX6dDpbfYWujsrKcNTAY17jJ4mAHRzvJ/xNvloPgDi7+ imrJE8OIEFjlPFHwVsf6xyJtPuynGhf2KcyBfOocdUz70qEttoMJV5AIUDOgMIizuuQn TCAofmApGvHeOLg9BDZrFle/5yNW/E9X0O0KWKQCM2OLSfj3DnSNhS++OKTq2+XT2kI0 ub9K1H7y3yInLH9JiCLRL5lwIUu8zWncIDQWj6yC6ERs1WWGpMG/i33HAdBeYs/dbfZ5 oNsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkOfVUbSnWI4uRAwYRZjVbCeTvEF3nkQRlULNopdMvMVp/V95SjGt1AfRtEJwElMail9lBd
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id dg10mr5892154oec.13.1403294996579; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:09:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgSGKyKgL44tJXLat8x8_TR2yKmzkFk_BzJC=7TG5txe1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86d782c957e304fc4a13e4
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/wYXZ5kzXxxmnW56I_y_6ax_iAvQ
Subject: [xmpp] AD review of draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket
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, 20 Jun 2014 20:10:21 -0000

I have reviewed this draft in preparation for IETF LC.  Overall, it looks
to be in good shape.  Thanks for a nice document.  I've requested last
call, and there are a few minor comments below to consider along with LC



S3.1. "WebSocket messages sent or received will conform"
Should this be "MUST conform"?

S3.6.1. "a different transport, such as BOSH"
How is the recipient of one of these messages supposed to tell what
transport?  Does the use of an http- or https-schemed URI imply BOSH?

S3.7. "[Streams implicitly closed]"
Does this usage map cleanly to the TCP case?  That is, would a </stream>
element be sent in this closure case?  I'm just imagining that if you have,
say, a relatively naïve gateway that translates <stream> to <open> and
</stream> to <close>, this could cause problems.