On 19 December 2011 10:38, Greg Wilkins <
gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Also note that RFC6455 has had the additional error codes defined:
>
>
> 1011
>
> 1011 indicates that a server is terminating the connection because
> it encountered an unexpected condition that prevented it from
> fulfilling the request.
>
> 1015
>
> 1015 is a reserved value and MUST NOT be set as a status code in a
> Close control frame by an endpoint. It is designated for use in
> applications expecting a status code to indicate that the
> connection was closed due to a failure to perform a TLS handshake
> (e.g., the server certificate can't be verified).
>
>
> 1011 can be sent on the wire, so really the version number in the
> handshake should have been incremented from 13 to 14... but that is no
> great importance.
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> On 19 December 2011 10:32, Greg Wilkins <
gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Joakim,
>>
>> I think we should rename the D13 classes to RFC6455, but keep the
>> other draft implementations at least for the next few releases.
>> Although, since those drafts are marginally functional, we should
>> perhaps provide and option to not accept them on the server.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>
>> On 12 December 2011 10:05, Joakim Erdfelt <
joakim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Looks like the WebSocket RFC has been released
>>> at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455
>>>
>>> Any objections to cleaning up all of the various old draft specific
>>> implementations in jetty-websocket and having only 1 implementation, the RFC
>>> defined one, as present in the codebase?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joakim Erdfelt
>>>
joakim@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
http://webtide.com |
http://intalio.com
>>> (the people behind jetty and cometd)
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jetty-dev mailing list
>>>
jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev
>>>
_______________________________________________
jetty-dev mailing list
jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-dev
