On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Joel Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty >>> well >>> >> >> Yet it never was worded that way when this WG started debating mainly WS. >> In fact, I don't recall any other protocol being discussed on this board so >> I disagree with the term "requirement" in this very case. >> >> > My point is that Willy's paragraph is a concise summary the current (and > original) requirements document for WebSockets and the HyBi charter too for > that matter: > > Original WebSocket requirements doc: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-loreto-hybi-requirements-00 > Current WebSocket requirements doc: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-02> > > Original WebSocket charter: > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/hybi/charters?item=charter-hybi-2010-01-26.txt > Current WebSocket charter: http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/hybi-charter > > IMO, the current protocol design fits quite well with the HyBi charter and > WebSocket requirements. One could argue that the charter and requirements > document are flawed, but given the starting point, the current result has > almost fulfilled the original vision (the remaining item is wide adoption, > but that seems very likely assuming the WG work isn't derailed in the > meantime). > > Fair enough. Though I'd say we still lack large set of implementations, specially at intermediaries side, as well as other use-cases beyond what was initially provided. -- - Sylvain http://www.defuze.org http://twitter.com/lawouach
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
