Subject: [sipcore] RFC 6455 - conflicting statements

From: "Nataraju A.B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:09:20 +0530

Hi All,

Following is the snippet from the RFC6455.

<RFC6455>

2.  Conformance Requirements

   All diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-
   normative, as are all sections explicitly marked non-normative.
   *Everything *else in this specification is normative.

1.9.  Subprotocols Using the WebSocket Protocol

   _This section is non-normative._

   The client can request that the server use a specific subprotocol by
   including the |Sec-WebSocket-Protocol| field in its handshake.  If it
   is specified, the server needs to include the same field and one of
   the selected subprotocol values in its response for the connection to
   be established.

3.  WebSocket URIs

   This specification defines two URI schemes, using the ABNF syntax
   defined in RFC 5234 [RFC5234], and terminology and ABNF productions
   defined by the URI specification RFC 3986 [RFC3986].

          ws-URI = "ws:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path [ "?" query ]
          wss-URI = "wss:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path [ "?" query ]

          host = <host, defined in [RFC3986], Section 3.2.2>
          port = <port, defined in [RFC3986], Section 3.2.3>
          path = <path-abempty, defined in [RFC3986], Section 3.3>
          query = <query, defined in [RFC3986], Section 3.4>

</RFC6455>

*Comment*: According to statement in sec 2, section 3 - WebSocket URIs (for
example) is normative. But I don't think that it correct. Section 3,
similarly sec 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 must be changed as non-normative text.

Am I missing something here in basic understanding ???

Thanks,
Nataraju A.B.

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:49:59 +0200

2012/4/27 Nataraju A.B <[email-masked]>:
> Comment: According to statement in sec 2, section 3 - WebSocket URIs (for

Nataraju, RFC 6455 belongs to HYBI Working Group, and not to SIPCORE WG.

Anyhow, it's too late to fix/improve an already published RFC, so I
suggest you to report an issue in the IETF tracker for RFC 6455.

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>