Thanks for the review, Dan. I would like to see some thoughts from the editors regarding the two points that you raised.
Jari On 02 Jul 2014, at 09:00, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may > receive. > > Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket/ > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 7/2/2014 > IETF LC End Date: 7/4/2014 > IESG Telechat date: 7/10/2014 > > Summary: ready with minor issues > > Major issues: > > None > > Minor issues: > > 1. In order to accommodate the Websocket binding this document > describes several deviations from RFC6120. For example, in Section 3.3 it > says: > The WebSocket XMPP sub-protocol deviates from the standard method of > constructing and using XML streams as defined in [RFC6120] by > adopting the message framing provided by WebSocket to delineate the > stream open and close headers, stanzas, and other top-level stream > elements. > I am wondering whether it would not be appropriate to reflect > this in the document header by adding Updates RFC6120 > > 2. In Section 3.6.1: > > If the server wishes at any point to instruct the client to move to a > different WebSocket endpoint (e.g. for load balancing purposes), the > server MAY send a <close/> element and set the "see-other-uri" > attribute to the URI of the new connection endpoint (which MAY be for > a different transport method, such as BOSH (see [XEP-0124] and > [XEP-0206]). > > I do not understand the usage of MAY in this paragraph. Is there > another method to move to a different Web socket endpoint that is described > here or some other place? In not, why is not the first MAY at least a SHOULD? > The second usage seems to describe a state of facts, so it needs not be > capitalized at all. > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > In Section 3.1 I believe that the example should be preceded by some text > that indicates that this is an example, such as: ‘An example of a successful > handshake and start of session follows:’ > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
