Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

Patrick McManus <> Fri, 02 December 2016 03:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96481297E4 for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:18:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.296
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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 (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mtvAmxKNS6d3 for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:18:40 -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 39F57126FDC for <>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:18:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCeJh-0007Yv-3q for; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 03:15:17 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 03:15:17 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCeJZ-0004wy-QW for; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 03:15:09 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cCeJS-00084o-Ng for; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 03:15:04 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=e2WLueCVmZFy5fM9eu329W5w5A8=; b=xKdMwqBebLcbgxYLej avMEI/zAP3a4M8sbm2bBDLMV08SXKEoLtYJOtNIZRozZ7y4Sm9w1xielldjKSsdV njbipzpso33jZJParHrIbGMMgZ0pJSAH/57Bo8F89OjzsBJQNSbOZ5qABrIZW6zo jKxWX2T6vCZdy2vG3rXnTKaNk=
Received: by with SMTP id filter0565p1mdw1-5500-5840E71B-23 2016-12-02 03:14:35.584217306 +0000 UTC
Received: from ( []) by (SG) with ESMTP id inWx5gdUQOKVehTwGOf3Mg for <>; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 03:14:35.509 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by with SMTP id w33so240269711qtc.3 for <>; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:14:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03keLr3NSLQY8ED8kSxWz80r+V4O7r6In8Cw9VNDkievE8K99eRSScWvan/iPRyadvBmah/OJS3R3thaA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u4mr39546446qtb.186.1480648475329; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:14:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:14:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Patrick McManus <>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 22:14:34 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: Andy Green <>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <>, HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114062fe68d1e80542a45656"
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh7PlkVmH4RVusyntNqH3mPAo/M42a3FNldT8c NEmjNl+6EpWYMyNhamOW2SlgP1Zo9vh02lTV5h6TG0ihNh1jk6LQdq/mnHThJcZIUGaoeiG9Rz8Wwc tFNqt/YwZ8PDQTeBkLIojZApk2m1cnAExmFzUtMOaQVG0MehxGeq0W+D7UNDwyDgqAwEWjNHyW1ZiV 8=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1cCeJS-00084o-Ng 6c96266774fd289961e5eecb0923cfc3
Subject: Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33084
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Andy Green <> wrote:

> The actual game here is "provide a transport for JS WS API on h2".  It

indeed - but what I'm trying to get to the root of in this thread is what
motivates that. If the game is to get it into somebody's charter. that is
going to need to be crisp. So far I've really only heard 2 strong
motivators (along with a few complementary smaller ones)

1] it is inherently a problem that 6455 can only be done on h1 because it
is left behind the h2 curve. To be honest, this is generally stated as a
given but it isn't obviously true to me. I haven't heard this fleshed out
very convincingly - I tried to give some seeds to help build that argument
in the first message of this thread.. but to my mind there hasn't been a
convincing case made yet that this is a problem (which isn't to say I think
the case can't be made).

2] ws needs mux (and priority and flow control that go with it)  and h2 has
already solved that thorny problem. I buy this if ws needs mux. I supported
mux with Roberto in the hybi days and the wg decided against doing it in
the base version as part of 6455. This seems to be a stronger argument  But
has the lack of mux been a problem in practice for ws? anecdotes or data to
support that?