idnits 2.17.1 draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-65.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 53 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([HTML5]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (December 9, 2009) is 5223 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'HTML5' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ORIGIN' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2109 (Obsoleted by RFC 2965) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2246 (Obsoleted by RFC 4346) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2965 (Obsoleted by RFC 6265) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3490 (Obsoleted by RFC 5890, RFC 5891) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4366 (Obsoleted by RFC 5246, RFC 6066) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'WEBADDRESSES' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'WSAPI' Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group I. Hickson 3 Internet-Draft Google, Inc. 4 Intended status: Standards Track December 9, 2009 5 Expires: June 12, 2010 7 The Web Socket protocol 8 draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-65 10 Abstract 12 The Web Socket protocol enables two-way communication between a user 13 agent running untrusted code running in a controlled environment to a 14 remote host that has opted-in to communications from that code. The 15 security model used for this is the Origin-based security model 16 commonly used by Web browsers. The protocol consists of an initial 17 handshake followed by basic message framing, layered over TCP. The 18 goal of this technology is to provide a mechanism for browser-based 19 applications that need two-way communication with servers that does 20 not rely on opening multiple HTTP connections (e.g. using 21 XMLHttpRequest or