Re: WebSocket2

Amos Jeffries <> Sun, 02 October 2016 05:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3BA412B02F for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oQ-ZXITRMB3w for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:53:20 -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 B333612B008 for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bqZe9-0001CD-IZ for; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:49:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:49:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bqZe7-0001BP-4S for; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:49:07 +0000
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bqZe5-0005zF-9o for; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:49:06 +0000
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE66E6DEB for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 18:48:35 +1300 (NZDT)
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Amos Jeffries <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
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: 1bqZe5-0005zF-9o 47618b0dfe05497efea9d0d6994b11a8
Subject: Re: WebSocket2
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32444
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-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

> 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.