Re: WebSocket2

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Sun, 02 October 2016 05:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BA412B02F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oQ-ZXITRMB3w for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B333612B008 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bqZe9-0001CD-IZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:49:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:49:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bqZe9-0001CD-IZ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1bqZe7-0001BP-4S for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:49:07 +0000
Received: from [121.99.228.82] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1bqZe5-0005zF-9o for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:49:06 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.45.78]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE66E6DEB for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 18:48:35 +1300 (NZDT)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CAG-EYCjx5=tExsjOJ+_-5p95Vp=Wfaz8JihDAAykDQpL64T4TA@mail.gmail.com> <20161001051700.245FA10F65@welho-filter1.welho.com> <CAG-EYCiXDYjmZ4r_8q31-UKQBG5=U53xOh1vef3-TJCVuytmdw@mail.gmail.com> <201610011936.u91JaZlG008986@shell.siilo.fmi.fi> <CAG-EYCiqq7KsYq6it9qsc-HLh3PZWtexX3LE=rSio6SLHeVPew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Message-ID: <8b2ca762-7601-0535-db4f-0f57d81fd476@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 18:48:28 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG-EYCiqq7KsYq6it9qsc-HLh3PZWtexX3LE=rSio6SLHeVPew@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.248, BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bqZe5-0005zF-9o 47618b0dfe05497efea9d0d6994b11a8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WebSocket2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/8b2ca762-7601-0535-db4f-0f57d81fd476@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32444
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2/10/2016 10:21 a.m., Van Catha wrote:
>> How something (registeration) which is just "Expert Review" can be
> considered
>> to be change of actual HTTP/2 specification ?
> 
> Well in the case that it will provide no resistance. The only possible
> value of adding a Setting
> I can see is to advertise what the headers currently advertise (is
> WebSocket2 available, can we compress, other possible other things).
> 
> Keep in mind different paths on the authority can use different compression
> methods.
> 
> The resistance I see is that it will have to be "Expert Reviewed" before
> being included, and a part of that 16bit space would have to
> be reserved for WebSocket2 extension settings. First, I doubt it would
> happen in a reasonable time frame and second

I believe the relevant expert(s) are reading this thread already. So if
a clear need for such extension is found and a definition document
created (eg the WebSocket2 RFC / Draft) it wont take much longer than
getting that spec defiend to use it in the first place. :-)

Implementation rollout will be what it will be. Regardless of any Draft
review.

> I just do not see the necessity.  We have custom headers in HTTP/1.1 for a
> long time and no one has had a problem with it.
> 

That is the more likely reason a negotiated extension is unlikely to
happen. If it is not needed at all, then it might be easier not to bother.

Amos