<hat type='shepherd'/>
On 7/8/14, 12:51 AM, Lance Stout wrote:
I would like to see some thoughts from the editors regarding the two points
that you raised.
Hrm, did my earlier response on the 3rd not make it through moderation to the
gen-art list?
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
This is creating a new binding, separate from the TCP binding defined in
RFC6120. While
this document introduces framing (thus deviating from RFC6120) it does not
actually
modify anything in RFC6120.
That seems accurate to me (also with my RFC6120-author hat on).
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.
That is the only method, so I agree that can be a SHOULD, and also agree on the
second point.
After proposing changing this to SHOULD to the WG, some members have questioned
if
2119 language is even needed here at all, as there is no alternative way to do
this.
Right. I might change "the server MAY send a <close/> element and
set..." to, simply, "the server sends a <close/> element and sets..."
since, as you say, this is just how it's done. (These conditionally
normative statements are always a bit confusing - "if X then MUST Y" and
such.)
Peter
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
