W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > June 2015

Re: Where to file RFC 6455 bugs? [Was: Re: CfC: Mixed Content to PR; deadline July 6th.]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:30:55 +1000
Cc: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <189E6F94-0FCF-411E-9CB5-7F2A844D5714@mnot.net>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Hi Arthur,

> On 23 Jun 2015, at 5:05 am, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 6/22/15 2:05 PM, Mike West wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl <mailto:annevk@annevk.nl>> wrote:
>> 
>>    On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com
>>    <mailto:mkwst@google.com>> wrote:
>>    > If you have any comments or concerns regarding this CfC, please
>>    reply to
>>    > public-webappsec@w3.org <mailto:public-webappsec@w3.org> by the
>>    end of June 6th at the latest. Silence will
>>    > be interpreted as glowing praise and full-throated agreement,
>>    but I'd
>>    > encourage you to praise full-throatedly, glowingly, _and_
>>    explicitly on the
>>    > list. :)
>> 
>>    Looks pretty good.
>> 
>> 
>> I'll take it!
>> 
>>    Are there bugs on WebSocket to get the specification updated to take
>>    Mixed Content into account?
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28841
>> 
>> It's not entirely clear to me where to file a bug on the protocol. Is there a group working on an update to RFC 6455?
> 
> Perhaps the hybi list [1]?
> 
> Mark - can you help or give us a contact?
> 
> -ArtB
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/maillist.html

The HYBI WG is still open, but AIUI is closing *very* soon.

I'd definitely send a message to the mailing list here. One of the outcomes *might* be an Errata, but be aware that the IETF has a pretty specific definition of errata - generally, technical changes in the document are out of scope, unless it's due to a decision that the WG made not being reflected in the document (which isn't the case here, AFAICT).

Errata can be "held for document update", and it feels like that might be appropriate here.

You could also argue that the WG should be held open to spin a quick revision of 6455. However, you'd likely need someone willing to be editor, since that group has become pretty quiet. Process-wise, it should be pretty simple.

Cheers,



--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 23:31:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:13 UTC