Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

Kazuho Oku <> Fri, 02 December 2016 01:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37C8129A38 for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:01:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.396
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BO9rtaEDSeNg for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45075129A2B for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:01:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCcA6-0007nR-2c for; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:57:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:57:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCc9z-0007lR-Ga for; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:57:07 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCc9s-0007Ax-Vm for; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:57:02 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id g23so2687294wme.1 for <>; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:56:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SZtUiPCMo0EILgxlCVKiwujOC4Vt61hrqcdqnKrf8fo=; b=OkEIbX97VN4O18LqMtiAeeOJB19GpIW0EQ8BFeuvLzKaxhLxkHGQzJB9l5pTXYcutj jYi2Glk0zyNufDTepZjo2BmlHgePlD19aNX0u2jBNJkqjsLS0J9u5iSa9KC0U7q2tkvN +8YaZDTRC0cF3Bg+GHYqVH8JCXh4wpgLd7mQRQFNZumMVoXgTsgEAYCeKnB5REY/J1ls bhNRTGzelFQJFMStk/uOxvNDI1rJAc80Cpta5YfshvoURhCaFcWOG+S9Ur7d19GeB0Lx UgTm9vrs9VtS3jDoiEAlVKJPos3GhDZuN8UihOwH7bwC3ucSDZvbgZOiTBopjCX4D5Ve ylOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SZtUiPCMo0EILgxlCVKiwujOC4Vt61hrqcdqnKrf8fo=; b=lanAqvo+b8SdJtLkbuA+y4wbBl81uWPNRi2j9xlIXccBf76NtruEhIQWJlGvBY8KaZ 40cy8WLwetMXpxrzhScLIV8iLTUPBlUSdsVoJmYvh06v8zSQbmijVlVmzhd/UQKIolXU v1+C6YBLIEMz5qFlmWOaJ0A+Dw15m62k4mmcvFFVAUrGEP8j39n8+7BLLrozrtRJX5h0 FiPqEhLHcU6NRpuqFsDQk6h6Cjrog1d4zc9WDEFm75vf5KQvU3IaQC8OiQxnXG2opKD7 4E8m2Etb9dgHhaSXT2KGXAOPJEi3gJAGJjyDipSei8NUCcVxqkU0wnsW/uVz58bd/ohj NuJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC024F4Sh5qFx/9IN5TX5jLL3M4xffromry6I//gEFe8rgy0u11uXP3fBQNYYCqeFi4Kw6qmRq/+WNubf1w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u192mr493405wmd.142.1480640193587; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:56:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:56:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 09:56:32 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <>, Patrick McManus <>, HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143c944c7713d0542a26832"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.786, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1cCc9s-0007Ax-Vm 504fe9952c6803f8f0dc9daf6f0d2fcf
Subject: Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33077
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

2016-12-02 9:19 GMT+09:00 Martin Thomson <>:

> On 2 December 2016 at 11:09, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> > In particular, my recollection of the outcome of the discussion of WS in
> H2 was that a new SETTING or a new ALPN token could be used to indicate
> that a connection supports both H2 and WS. If there's a problem with doing
> so, that would be good to talk about as well. Especially considering QUIC.
> There seems to be some reluctance to exercise that option.  I don't
> understand why; I've a bunch of candidate theories, but none of them
> make a lot of sense.
My understanding is that the cons of using SETTINGS only is that it
requires an additional roundtrip on connection establishment. I've heard
people oppose to the use of ALPN since they want to use both H2 and WS (and
possibly DNS?) on the same connection.

Personally, I think using both SETTINGS (or introducing a new frame) and
ALPN solves the shortcomings (and the reluctance). We could consider ALPN
as a method to specify the application protocol (e.g. HTTP or WS or DNS),
and use SETTINGS for permitting additional protocols to be coalesced.

Kazuho Oku