Yes, that would be concerning indeed...

The author couldn't tell why he didn't manage to make run the C or python program but figured it is probably the blame of the language for some obscure reasons.

He also mentioned that he should have implemented multithreading in C++ to be comparable with Node, but meh that's probably also not of his concern, let compare them as is ^^`

Also he doesn't mention the actual language of the library used, but that would have voided the interest of the article, so I quite may understand that omission :P

But at the end, nothing can be learned from this and it is hard to believe it is what "research" can produce

Yeah it’s a rubbish paper. It’s just a comparison of some websocket implementations at some particular point in time. It tells you how fast some of the fastest WS implementations are in absolute terms, but there are no broad conclusions you can make other than the fact that there’s more room for optimisation in a few libraries. Whoopty doo. News at 11.

Following Postel's law does not mean to accept anything. The received data should still be unambiguous.

You can see that in the case where ASN.1 data need to be exchanged. You could decide to always send them in the DER form (conservative) but accept BER (liberal). BER is still an unambiguous encoding for ASN.1 data but allow several representations for the same data.

The problem with BER mainly lies with cryptographic signature as the signature will only match a specific encoding so that's why DER is used in certificates. But you can still apply Postel's law, you may still accept BER fields when parsing file. If the field has been incorrectly encoded in a varied form which is incompatible with the signature, you will just reject it as you would reject it because it is not standard with DER. But still, you lessen the burden to make sure all parts follow exactly the standards the same way and things tend to work more reliably across server/clients combinations.

Cookie value can contain `=`, `/` and `+` characters so standard base64 encoding can be used as well :)

So, just be as conservative as possible when you produce data and as liberal as possible when you receive something. Your code will then require the least cooperation from *any* other code to be compatible with.

Doing otherwise will require cooperation to adjust on the specificities clients expect, and you fall into the trap of the prisoner dilemna.

No, when you create a protocol define exactly what you need what is optional and what is an error, and stick to that.

Being liberal on what you accept is a path for disaster.

You changed the problem. Postel's law is not about writing the protocol but implementing it.

Sure, protocol should be designed to be as specific as possible but unfortunately these are not always defined up to that point for any good or bad reasons, and we generally are at best just in the implementation side and cannot influence the writing of the protocol, so the Postel's law is the best we can apply to avoid having to cooperate with the rest of the planet.

From wikipedia:

> The principle is also known as Postel's law, after Jon Postel, who used the wording in an early specification of TCP.

From the mentioned specification:

> TCP implementations should follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.

Better to look in the sources ;)

Ironically, this supports the message of the article :D