Subject: [hybi] consensus call: websocketprotocol baseline

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 16:55:23 +0300

During the last IETF 77 the wg decided to use the version 75th to be 
adopted as official wg item.
That was due to the fact all the already shipped implementation (e.g. 
chrome, kaazing, jetty)
are currently based on the 75th version of the draft.
The idea was to start with a -00 version that matches what people 
shipped and then discuss what to put in -01 version.
Another reason to adopt 75th version, was that there were no official 
76th version at the time.
( Ian yesterday submitted to the IETF the 76th version of the draft:
_http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76.txt_ )
During the last weeks there as been a lot of discussion about 75th vs 76th,
and it seems that people do not think that breaking changes are a big 
problem at this stage.
So as chairs we want to check the consensus for which version (75th or 
76th) adopt as baseline of
official HyBi wg item: draft-ietf-websocketprotocol-00.

The consensus call will run until May 14th, 2010.

Then we will ask Ian Hixie to submit the version that has received the 
consensus has wg item.

best regards
/Sal

-- 
Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com

---

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 16:30:51 +0200

Sal,

As I'm sure you can guess, my preference is for 75 over 76,
because of the non HTTP compliant issues (not because
of breaking changes).

However, I do recognize that there is also much goodness in
76 that we don't really want to lose or even revisit.

So I'd like to suggest a third alternative for consensus:
that Ian prepare a 77 draft, based on 76, but with the handshake
reverted to the 75 handshake.

77 can become version 0 of the WG draft and we can immediately
resume discussion on the two issues that the new handshake is
trying to address:

  1 protection from injectable servers
  2 "fast" fail semantics on connection.

I'm sure we can quickly come to agreement on something for
the first issue.   We should then make every effort to solve
the second issue without out breaking the compliance with HTTP.
If we cannot, then we have to determine which requirement is
more important: HTTP compliance or "fast" fail (or if any
solution can actually achieve reliable "fast" fail).

regards

Salvatore Loreto wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 16:41:55 +0200

On 07.05.2010 16:30, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> ...

+1

That being said, the *much* more interesting question (to me at least) 
is how we manage the process once we have a Working Group draft.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Anne van Kesteren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 07:39:23 +0900

On Fri, 07 May 2010 22:55:23 +0900, Salvatore Loreto  
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> 76th) adopt as baseline of official HyBi wg item:  
> draft-ietf-websocketprotocol-00.

76th.

-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 03:18:18 -0700

At 07:41 AM 5/7/2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
>That being said, the *much* more interesting question (to me at 
>least) is how we manage the process once we have a Working Group draft.

The usual way.  Changes are proposed on this mailing list and they 
are incorporated into the I-D if the changes are not 
controversial.  The editor of the I-D can always ask the WG Chairs 
for advice if he/she isn't sure about the issue.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jamie Lokier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 12:34:01 +0100

> for advice if he/she isn't sure about the issue.

Does that mean we know at this point the end product will be whatever
current draft is chosen, plus uncontroversial changes only?

If so at least we know what to expect, and can decide whether to
invest design effort into this protocol or a different one.

Thanks,
-- Jamie

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 05:51:24 -0700

Hi Jamie,
>current draft is chosen, plus uncontroversial changes only?

No, it means that it is easy for the editor to add uncontroversial 
changes.  Controversial changes can be resolved through consensus calls.

A draft has to be adopted as a WG item.  It doesn't really matter 
which one is adopted as this is only a draft and it doesn't represent 
the consensus of the WG.  It's up to the WG Chairs to determine 
whether there is consensus and how to get the work done.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 06:00:51 -0700

At 06:55 AM 5/7/2010, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
>Then we will ask Ian Hixie to submit the version that has received 
>the consensus has wg item.

Will Ian Hixie be the editor of the WG document?

Who decides on when to submit a new version of the (WG) I-D?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jamie Lokier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 16:35:48 +0100

> changes.  Controversial changes can be resolved through consensus calls.

Ok, thanks, that's very helpful.

-- Jamie

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 19:45:04 +0300

to clarify the process:

  the chairs are well aware from the observations raised during the 
meeting and after on the list
that there are in both the versions (75 and 76) of the draft several 
controversial areas
where text may (and indeed needs to) be improved, changed or removed.
The discussion has also indicated several issues that certainly need 
more discussion and
a more clear consensus.

Since we are now at a fresh start, whatever version will be chosen as 
baseline,
we will adopt a systematic approach at tracking issues on this document 
using the
IETF issue tracker tool.
(for an idea of how the tool works take a look at:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/query?component=p1-messaging).

Moreover the draft will be changed to reflect and respect the 
requirements that will
be gather through consensus in the requirement draft.

best regards
/Sal

-- 
Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 19:48:28 +0300

Ian Hixie has accepted to be the editor of the WG document.

The chairs will help Ian to determine whether there is consensus on 
controversial issues,
and to decide on when subsequent versions of the (WG) I-D

Cheers
/Sal

-- 
Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com

---

From: Maciej Stachowiak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 03:38:58 -0700

On May 7, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Fri, 07 May 2010 22:55:23 +0900, Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked] 
> > wrote:
>> 76th) adopt as baseline of official HyBi wg item: draft-ietf- 
>> websocketprotocol-00.
>
> 76th.

I agree with Anne - 76th.

Regards,
Maciej

---

From: Maciej Stachowiak <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 03:40:10 -0700

> Will Ian Hixie be the editor of the WG document?

Correct: his name is "Ian Hickson".

Regards,
Maciej

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:04:38 +0900

I'm fine with adopting either draft. It's much more important to adopt a 
draft as a baseline quickly and then work on it than to make a big deal 
out of which draft to adopt as a baseline.

Also, while on controversial issue, it is very important that the chairs 
assess consensus and direct the editor, I think we shouldn't take this 
too far and put up every little wording issue for a WG consensus call.

Also, I would personally be absolutely fine with the/an editor to put 
some textual proposals into a new draft without necessarily checking all 
the details beforehand with the WG, if such new text is editorial only 
or if it is properly marked in the draft (e.g. with NEW PROPOSAL or 
ISSUE or whatever). I have seen quite a few WGs where that worked out 
fine. Of course, I leave it to the chairs how to handle this.

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:05:59 +0200

> out of which draft to adopt as a baseline.

This is a good point.... and as it seams that some browser vendors
are implementing -76 regardless of what is happen in this WG, then
I guess the server implementations will have to follow.

Adopting 75 as the baseline will not sort out the mess of deployment
with unversioned different implementations of 75/76 etc.

So if we can move quickly to start the process, then let's go with -76
as the basis of an ietf-00

> fine. Of course, I leave it to the chairs how to handle this.

I agree that adding clearly marked proposal in the draft is a
reasonable way to proceed.

My main concern is making sure that we do not force implementers
to all follow speculative changes.   We need some clearer way
of indicating when a proposal is sufficiently mature that we
would expect implementations tracking the draft to implement
it.

Of course having a version in the protocol handshake would
also help servers enormously.  Servers will now be confronted
with a mix of -75 and -76 traffic being presented to them
and will have to infer which behaviour to follow.

regards

---

From: Christopher Blizzard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 08:28:00 -0700

> with unversioned different implementations of 75/76 etc.

It was my understanding that the only browser to have shipped this - 
Chrome - would upgrade once there was a new version available.  It was 
sadly included in the feature list for the Chrome 5 betas as a feature, 
but it hasn't seen wide adoption yet.

Wellington, is the version that you've been working on for Firefox based 
on -75 or -76?  I saw there was a separate bug opened to update to the 
most recent version of the protocol, didn't know if that was going to be 
a separate patch or not.

--Chris

---

From: Wellington Fernando de Macedo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:24:34 -0300

Wellington, is the version that you've been
working on for Firefox based on -75 or -76?  I saw there was a separate
bug opened to update to the most recent version of the protocol, didn't
know if that was going to be a separate patch or not.

It is based on the 75th. The other bug is intended for updating our
75th implementation to the latest one (I think the 76th one).

---

Wellington Fernando de Macedo

Computer Engineering

Phone: +55 (16) 8144.8607

Em 12/05/2010 12:28, Christopher Blizzard escreveu:

On
5/12/2010 4:05 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

Adopting 75 as the baseline will not sort out
the mess of deployment

Wellington, is the version that you've been working on for Firefox
based on -75 or -76?  I saw there was a separate bug opened to update
to the most recent version of the protocol, didn't know if that was
going to be a separate patch or not.

--Chris

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 19:06:02 +0300

The HyBi has a Milestone in the charter to submit 'The Web Socket 
protocol' as working group item
in April (and to use "draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol" as a starting 
point for further work.)

Last week, May 7th, I sent out a consensus call to check which version 
to use as baseline between -75 an -76.
The call ends today!
There has been a rough consensus to use -76 as baseline [1].

Ian Hickson has agreed to continue to be the author also of the IETF wg 
draft and to act as editor for the working group,
leading the discussion and the design of the WebSocket protocol, and 
making in the draft any eventual change
that the WG decide it needs.
(we will use the Issue Tracker to track the progress of WG documents as 
well as the consensus on some specific
and/or controversial topic/issue)

Ian may submit -76 as wg item ?
you have only change the draft name:
  from->  draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76
  to    ->   draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00

Cheers
/Sal

[1] The baseline it is only a draft and does not represent the consensus 
of the WG. The fact that is

-- 
Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com