Re: WebSocket over HTTP2 RFC6455 conformance

I wanted to get an agreement on this topic, but it may be difficult.
OK, I am writing another rough draft[1] which is not based on RFC6455
WebSocket frame.
It encodes a WebSocket message to HEADERS + DATAs, there is no message
injection and there is no WebSocket frame.
It may have extensions, but they will be incompatible with RFC6455
extensions.

Martin, Roberto, Is that what you want?

[1]:
https://github.com/yutakahirano/ws-over-http2/blob/master/ws-over-http2-message-mapping.md


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com> wrote:

> Martin, is your answer "yes & no"?
> All "semantics" words in my proposal are qualified as "the RFC6455
> semantics" and it's not your "Websocket semantics".
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On 19 February 2014 06:11, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com> wrote:
>> > At hybi, the following people answered "yes & yes".
>>
>> When you ask about semantics, you need to be more precise.
>>
>> My interpretation of "Websocket semantics" is the set of things that
>> you can do with thewebsocketprotocol, or maybe the W3C WebSocket API.
>> If your intent is to tunnel the protocol in a completely lossless
>> fashion, then you are asking for more than just a preservation of
>> semantics, you also want to preserve syntax.
>>
>> Note that we preserve syntax in HTTP/2 because there is a wealth of
>> usage out there that relies on syntax, and even if we might think it
>> unwise to do so, we are still unwilling to break those users.  It
>> might be that the hybi group has people using those reserved bits such
>> that preserving them is paramount, but websockets has far less history
>> than HTTP.  I also didn't find the framing of the question or the
>> responses to be particularly convincing.
>>
>
>