Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

[Jacob Champion <[e-mail]>]

On 12/01/2016 07:48 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:
> Here's what I think I'm hearing, but there are so many messages that are
> done in the weeds of the solution space I don't want to lose track of
> the problems being solved - I think this list might help in any
> chartering discussion:
>
> * in a practical sense there is no mux and when you have mux you need
> priority and flow control. h2 solves this.
> * operational overhead of maintaining/admin h1 just to boostrap to
> websockets.
> * latency of a new h1 connection just to bootstrap to websockets
> * operational overhead of separate conns for http and ws
>
> is there more? some data on this stuff would be good. Is this really
> mostly about mux?

I've contributed to a major derailing of the thread elsewhere. My 
apologies... To try to bring this back to your original point:

Andy mentioned that an HTTP/2 transport for WebSocket might mean that we 
could get rid of client-to-server masking. I don't have any data to 
support my spitballing, but that *could* be a pretty decent optimization 
for implementations, since they no longer have to mask or de-mask the 
data in place. For example, it might open up the possibility of 
scatter/gather I/O for frame handling?

--Jacob