Re: WebSocket2

Ilari Liusvaara <> Sat, 01 October 2016 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0FF12B0F8 for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.017
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJ63B-HEs8-6 for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3100112B0CB for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bqPKS-0002yc-K7 for; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 18:48:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 18:48:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bqPKO-0002xE-T5 for; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 18:48:04 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bqPKN-0003XV-Fn for; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 18:48:04 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9C916224; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:47:35 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([IPv6:::ffff:]) by localhost ( [::ffff:]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XxoBbcd3NWs9; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:47:35 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 548CE283; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:47:35 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:47:30 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <>
To: Van Catha <>
Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.099, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1bqPKN-0003XV-Fn 4771b8ba82b1e21d38bd1ab6ba29b358
Subject: Re: WebSocket2
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32438
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 02:20:38PM -0400, Van Catha wrote:
> The proxy problem circles around back to the implementation. Perhaps a
> header in the request could be included saying to not cache anything, if
> the proxy caches things well its the proxies fault.  Also if the proxy is
> not aware of WebSocket2 this should not matter, the proxies job is to
> forward everything as it came.  As long as the proxy would forward the
> websocket2-[version|compression] headers to the server and forward what the
> server replies with there should be no problems.  Again if the proxy is
> "smart" and decides to cache the response (which did not specify any
> headers related to caching) its the proxies fault.  To be more direct the
> response may be forced to include headers specifically instructing nothing
> should be cached.  Does this work?

Is there request header to request no caching? There is certainly a
response header to request no caching.

Or perhaps use a dedicated method? It would seem pretty obivous that
if you see a unknown method, you shouldn't assume very much about what
it is.

> I am thinking using SETTINGS frames would be too complex, as that would
> require baking WebSocket2 directly into HTTP/2, the way it is now,
> WebSocket2 should run over HTTP/2 with minimal resistance since we do not
> introduce new settings or HTTP/2 frame types.  HTTP/2 was designed from the
> very beginning to not support 2 way streaming like websocket provides
> currently for HTTP/1.1.  I think the resistance would be great if adding
> WebSocket2 requires adding to the actual HTTP/2 specification.

Unfortunately, HTTP/2 does not have strict scheme handling like I
proposed. With it, one could just have directly used the wss scheme
(or ws for oppsec) and be done with it.

> If origin server does not know about WebSocket2 and the request succeeds
> that is indeed a problem.  Perhaps the server can reply with the error
> header always like websocket2-error: okay; in the case when the WebSocket2
> negotation was a success. This way an origin server without WebSocket2 will
> reply with 200, and the client will see there is no websocket2-error: okay;
> header and promptly notify the client that WebSocket2 negotiation failed.

It seems to me that using https:// GET here is rather dangerous. Even with
extra custom headers.