Re: WebSocket over HTTP2 RFC6455 conformance

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 19 February 2014 21:16, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> wrote:
> > So, you're also not interested in preserving RSV1-3 as-is even as
> > per-message basis?
>
> I'm more interested in the semantics (what I described), than the
> protocol itself.  The protocol in RFC 6455 is just one expression of
> those semantics.  I believe that an alternative expression of the
> semantics can be found that is more suited to it's environment (in
> this case HTTP/2).
>
> This doesn't mean that what RSV1-3 represent (extensibility) is not
> expressed.  But the idea that you need to meticulously preserve the
> protocol, while perhaps intuitive to some, to me is a little
> repugnant.
>

Sorry to be unclear. "As-is" in my comment was bad. I'm also talking about
semantics. The fact "there're 3 booleans associated with each message"
surfaces what kind of semantics can be layered over the protocol. So people
at HyBi would be worried about that and ask for "preserve RSV1-3". It's
possible some of them are missing "RSV1-3 as 1 bit occupation in baseband
for the same efficiency as RFC6455", but me and the rest are just talking
about semantics I think.