ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

2011-07-23 18:25:51
On Jul 23, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

In message <4E28A51F(_dot_)4020704(_at_)callenish(_dot_)com>, Bruce Atherton 
writes:

I admit that I find it a little troubling to use MUST for the client to 
follow this procedure as there is a burden on implementers to understand 
how to code this since it isn't done by default in the standard 
libraries the way that ordinary name resolution is. Making it the 
recognized best practice with a SHOULD would be preferable all else 
being equal.

No.  MUST is what is needed.  It's a new protocol.  Do what's best from
day one.


Sort of agree.  If use of SRV for this protocol is really appropriate (which I 
doubt, but I haven't looked at it closely) then the protocol specification 
should say "MUST use SRV".
If use of SRV for this protocol is not appropriate, or if it's not clear that 
it's appropriate, then the specification should probably say "MUST NOT use 
SRV". 

Either way, provide clear direction to implementors and don't leave the 
decision as to whether to use SRV up to the implementation.  That would create 
different behaviors in different implementations, which is clearly not 
desirable.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>