W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2012

Re: websockets in the IETF, was: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from September 2012)

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:32:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbfk_oT_oXERcYYXfb+=aztWdvNgkfeEdvhKtBBnJbqH5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
It should be quite clear to everyone that the horse is quite dead at this
point. Any further beating is entirely unnecessary. So let's wrap it up
with this: the whatwg's spec language around urls has the potential to
cause confusion among implementers, so please consider reworking that
language to avoid such confusion. Period, end of story.
 On Oct 23, 2012 2:12 PM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 2012-10-23 01:59, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Whether WebSockets is a good idea or not is besides the point. The
> point
> > > is that the hybi group was not a pleasant experience for me. If I were
> to
> > > be in a position to do Web Sockets again, I would decline the
> opportunity
> > > to do it through the IETF. Doing it through the IETF made the work
> take a
> > > year longer than it would have, made the protocol less secure (the WG
> > > removed a number of defense-in-depth features), and made the spec a
> mess
> > > ...
> >
> > And, as far as I can tell, fixed a security problem in the original
> > design (which caused some UA implementers to actually disable what they
> > were shipping at that time):
> > <http://w2spconf.com/2011/papers/websocket.pdf>
>
> The security issue in question was already fixed in the draft by the time
> that paper came out.
>
>
> > > (it's a mishmash of different editing styles). Plus, the group _still_
> > > hasn't done multiplexing, which some of the vendors said was a prereq
> > > to implementation, something which, prior to the IETF getting
> > > involved, was only 3 to 6 months out on the roadmap. ...
> >
> > Indeed, but then wasn't it you arguing *against* having it in the base
> > spec? (see <
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg00239.html>)
>
> I was arguing against having it in the first version, which I had planned
> for Q3 2009 IIRC, and was planning on defining it as an extension protocol
> in early 2010 (I even had a strawman ready). The hybi group argued and
> argued and argued and argued and then decided to not have it in the first
> version, which they ended up doing in Q4 2011, and still haven't done the
> extension. So yeah, I stand by my point above.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 21:32:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC