Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-01.txt

From: "Simon Pieters" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:08:33 +0200

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:44:09 +0200, Simon Pieters <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>> Ok. Here are the changes I could find since -00 and associated  
>>>> emails/bugs
>>>> ignoring things that are moot with -01 and things that IIRC were  
>>>> discussed
>>>> on hybi:

Ian, did you go through the changes that were already discussed on hybi?  
It was pointed out to me that -02 does not support the subprotocol  
negotiation which Hixie added in response to feedback on hybi.

http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5172&to=5173

The WebSocket API assumes that the protocol supports subprotocol  
negotiation.

I don't know if there are other changes that were missed; I suggest you  
look through the diff between -00 and Hixie's latest.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

---

From: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 08:52:28 -0700

Simon,

I did not go through everything. I am not that infallible. I am happy to
merge specific revisions upon request, but it's basically impossible for me
to look at the old "latest" draft and figure out what has and has not been
discussed. I will consider this a request to merge the revision noted below.
SM, can you create an issue in tracker for this so that it's not lost?

-Ian

2010/10/6 Simon Pieters <[email-masked]>

>  Ok. Here are the changes I could find since -00 and associated emails/bugs
> Ian, did you go through the changes that were already discussed on hybi? It
> was pointed out to me that -02 does not support the subprotocol negotiation
> which Hixie added in response to feedback on hybi.
>

---

From: "Simon Pieters" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:15:39 +0200

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:52:28 +0200, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> discussed.

But you can look through the diff and see if there's something that has  
not been merged in -02, and bring it to the attention of the WG if you  
think the WG should discuss it or merge it in if it's just editorial.

> I will consider this a request to merge the revision noted below.

Cheers,
-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:00:19 -0700

Hi Ian, Simon,
At 08:52 06-10-10, Ian wrote:
>I did not go through everything. I am not that infallible. I am 
>happy to merge specific revisions upon request, but it's basically 
>impossible for me to look at the old "latest" draft and figure out 
>what has and has not been discussed. I will consider this a request 
>to merge the revision noted below. SM, can you create an issue in 
>tracker for this so that it's not lost?

I suggest that Simon posts sends some text or describe the issue on 
the HyBi mailing list so that I can reference it when I create an 
issue in the tracker.  Alternatively, you can email me the text and 
I'll put it in the tracker.

>think the WG should discuss it or merge it in if it's just editorial.

Let's see how we can make the editing work easier.  The HyBi WG is 
currently working on draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-02.  If 
anyone brings a change to the attention of the WG, it can be 
discussed within the WG and a decision taken.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary

---

From: "Simon Pieters" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:26:21 +0200

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:00:19 +0200, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>  
wrote:

>> I did not go through everything. I am not that infallible. I am happy  
>> to merge specific revisions upon request, but it's basically impossible  
>> for me to look at the old "latest" draft and figure out what has and  
>> has not been discussed. I will consider this a request to merge the  
>> revision noted below. SM, can you create an issue in tracker for this  
>> so that it's not lost?
>
> I suggest that Simon posts sends some text or describe the issue on the  
> HyBi mailing list so that I can reference it when I create an issue in  
> the tracker.  Alternatively, you can email me the text and I'll put it  
> in the tracker.

Here you go:

Please merge in this change:

...since the WebSocket API assumes this change to be in place.

The original issue leading to the chance was discussed in  
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02250.html

> currently working on draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-02.  If anyone  
> brings a change to the attention of the WG, it can be discussed within  
> the WG and a decision taken.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> HyBi WG Secretary

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:24:47 -0700

Hi Simon,
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02250.html

This is being tracked as issue #24.

Please note that I only enter the requested change in the tracker 
when the text is posted to the HyBi mailing list or if the author of 
the text sends it to me.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:27:22 +0200

On 03.09.2010 14:34, Patrick McManus wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 02:56 -0400, John Tamplin wrote:
>
>
>> Unless the final spec makes FF4.0 (and I don't know how much lead time
>> it would take to get it in), then it is likely to exist there for some
>> non-trivial period of time.
>
> For those that aren't aware, I'm working with the Mozilla Websockets
> team. And with that hat on I can say FF is unlikely to deploy -76 in FF
> 4 - except perhaps under a clearly for-experiment-only namespace which
> is subject to breakage at any time.
>
> That being said, I'd love to get the specification to a state where we
> could ship something based on draft-ietf-* with some confidence that at
> least the basics were stable. We've got some work to do.

...the related Bugzilla bug is 
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602028>, btw...