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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'