On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty wellYet 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
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).
Regards,
Joel Martin
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf