Subject: [hybi] Fwd: RFC 6455 - conflicting statements

From: "Nataraju A.B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:35:27 +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, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8 must also be changed as non-normative text by inserting the text "_This
section is non-normative._".

Otherwise, Am I missing something here ???

Thanks,
Nataraju A.B.

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:19:34 +0200

2012/4/27 Nataraju A.B <[email-masked]>:
> Comment: According to statement in sec 2, section 3 - WebSocket URIs (for
> 6, 7, 8 must also be changed as non-normative text by inserting the text
> "_This section is non-normative._".
>

Hi Nataraju, since it's too late for changing an already published
RFC, I suggest you that, in case the issue is confirmed, report it in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php#reportnew.

Regards.

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:41:29 +0100

> Hi All,

Hi,
>    Everything else in this specification is normative.
> 
> 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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 must also be changed as non-normative text by inserting the text "_This section is non-normative._".
> 

Can you elaborate why you think that these sections are non-normative?

---

From: "Nataraju A.B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:51:00 +0530

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> *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,
> 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 must also be changed as non-normative text by inserting the
> text "_This section is non-normative._".
>
>

[ABN] In this context, We understand normative means informative text. It
is not mandatory to implement or refer normative text. But it is mandatory
to follow syntax and semantics of non-normative text / information. AFAIU
sections 3-8 of rfc6455 are mandatory to implement. Hence it must be
mentioned as non-normative text "_This section is non-normative._", like
mentioned for sections 1.1-1.9

-- 
Thanks,
Nataraju A.B.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:25:14 +0100

Hi,

On 27 Apr 2012, at 11:21, "Nataraju A.B" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [ABN] In this context, We understand normative means informative text. It is not mandatory to implement or refer normative text. But it is mandatory to follow syntax and semantics of non-normative text / information. AFAIU sections 3-8 of rfc6455 are mandatory to implement. Hence it must be mentioned as non-normative text "_This section is non-normative._", like mentioned for sections 1.1-1.9

Sorry, I am very confused. Non-normative and Informative have the say meaning. They definitely don't equate to "normative". Specific syntax, like ws: URI in Section 3 is normative, as it defines specific rules that are necessary to follow to implement ws: URI parsing, generation or processing.

---

From: "Nataraju A.B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:32:50 +0530

Alex,

Sorry for confusion. The comment should have been other way round. I mean
sections 1.1-1.9 shall be normative like other sections.

For example, Opening Handshake, Closing Handshake, Establishing a
Connection are mandatory to implement. Hence these sections must be
mentioned as normative text. therefore the text "_This section is
non-normative._" shall be removed in these sections.

Thanks,
Nataraju A B

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]>wrote:

>> (for example) is normative. But I don't think that it correct. Section
>> 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 must also be changed as non-normative text by inserting
>> the text "_This section is non-normative._".
>>
>>
> Sorry, I am very confused. Non-normative and Informative have the say
> meaning. They definitely don't equate to "normative". Specific syntax, like
> ws: URI in Section 3 is normative, as it defines specific rules that are
> necessary to follow to implement ws: URI parsing, generation or processing.
>
>

-- 
Thanks,
Nataraju A.B.