12.07.2011 9:59, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2011-07-12 06:40, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
[ . . . ]
Section 3. I propose to rewrite the first paragraph as follows:
This specification defines two URI schemes for WebSocket protocol -
'ws' and 'wss'. Their syntax is defined below using ABNF [RFC5234]
in the<ws-uri> and<wss-uri>, respectively:
ws-uri = "ws:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path-abempty [ "?" query ]
wss-uri = "wss:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path-abempty [ "?" query ]
where the<host>,<port>,<path-abempty> and<query> rules are
defined in RFC 3986 [RFC3986].
Rationale: (1) The first paragraph gets clearer. (2) ABNF is changed not
ot use pros-vals (RFC 5234) (3) s/path/path-abempty/ to directly import
it from RFC 3986 (4) Several editorial issues fixed.
-10
Granted, it doesn't use prose values anymore, but then it get's
incomplete. I believe putting references to ABNF productions from
other specs into prose values is absolutely the right thing to do (as
opposed to just mention them in prose).
I don't have any string position in the way of importing the productions
from other documents. However, what is above is what I like more.
However, what we can see, eg. in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5538#appendix-A can be fine as well.
Section 5.2.2, bullet 3, sub-bullet 4. When defining the ABNF for a
header, the header name should be included in it as well. So the first
line should be:
...
Why?
There is the following formulation:
The 'Foo' headers takes the form of <foo-header> ABNF rules below:
foo-header = *(APHA/DIGIT)
will result in the message headers like:
Upgrade: TLS/1.2
Connection: Upgrade
gfr134
and "gfr134" will be the 'Foo' header. "foo-header = "Foo:"
*(APHA/DIGIT)" will result in valid:
Upgrade: TLS/1.2
Connection: Upgrade
Foo: gfr134
See also eg. RFC 3282, RFC 2616.
[ . . . ]
That being said, it might be a good idea to revisit the choice of
syntax, or at least to clarify the LWS situation.
The document may reference the httpbis-p1 where the <n>#<m>rule
extension will be described for valid ABNF. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-15#section-1.2.1
[ . . . ]
Section 11.2: the same applies.
Section 11.12:
Version Number | Reference
-+----------------+-----------------------------------------+-
| 0 + draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00 |
-+----------------+-----------------------------------------+-
[ . . . ]
-+----------------+-----------------------------------------+-
| 9 + draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09 |
-+----------------+-----------------------------------------+-
...
This is indeed fishy and I would be really surprised if IESG and RFC
Editor let this pass.
If 0..9 can't be reassigned then let's just state they are reserved.
I believe there is no problems to make the 0..9 spare, except 1, for
this version of WS.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
...
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf