Normative reference for Per-Message Compression Extension (RFC 7692)?

[ADKaster]

What is the issue with the WebSockets Standard?

I noticed that there is no normative reference for RFC 7692 in https://websockets.spec.whatwg.org/#normative

However, establish a WebSocket connection step 9 mentions the Sec-WebSocket-Extensions header defined in RFC 7692, and references the original WebSocket standard RFC instead of the extension's RFC in the trailing reference link.

9. Let permessageDeflate be a user-agent defined "permessage-deflate" extension header value. [WSP]
10. Append (Sec-WebSocket-Extensions, permessageDeflate) to request’s header list.

This leads to two questions:

1. Should step 9 of establish a WebSocket connection normatively reference RFC 7692?
2. Is a user agent that does not support permessage-deflate conforming to the WhatWG WebSockets standard?

[annevk]

I think the answers are 1) yes and 2) no. Though as always if no user agent actually implements this we might have to revisit things so looking at the existing test coverage is probably a good idea.

[ricea]

Oops, looks like this is completely untested by wpt.

We have some layout tests for Blink, but they use the obsolete test framework meaning porting involves more work than just search-and-replace.

In case anyone reading this has free time, the files to port are found by this query.