Re: WebSocket2

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Sun, 02 October 2016 05:13 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 016FD12B13A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:13:11 -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 FzFNuCmmBZ0j for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:13:09 -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 358E912B136 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bqZ1I-00086R-Sk for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:09:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:09:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bqZ1I-00086R-Sk@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 <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>) id 1bqZ1E-00085Q-43 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:08:56 +0000
Received: from welho-filter1.welho.com ([83.102.41.23]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>) id 1bqZ18-0004Vm-Lw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2016 05:08:52 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6C7115B7; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 08:08:22 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp3.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.86]) by localhost (welho-filter1.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.23]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfS9MKV8mbSC; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 08:08:21 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-237-87.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.237.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E7F62313; Sun, 2 Oct 2016 08:08:21 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 08:08:16 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20161002050816.GA8819@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <CAG-EYCjx5=tExsjOJ+_-5p95Vp=Wfaz8JihDAAykDQpL64T4TA@mail.gmail.com> <20161001051700.245FA10F65@welho-filter1.welho.com> <CAG-EYCiXDYjmZ4r_8q31-UKQBG5=U53xOh1vef3-TJCVuytmdw@mail.gmail.com> <20161001184730.GA8356@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CAG-EYChPJpAzoEuNwY3cNz503d0FRbNnDx_9AsNsZyfb5nmN0g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG-EYChPJpAzoEuNwY3cNz503d0FRbNnDx_9AsNsZyfb5nmN0g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Received-SPF: none client-ip=83.102.41.23; envelope-from=ilariliusvaara@welho.com; helo=welho-filter1.welho.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.432, 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: lisa.w3.org 1bqZ18-0004Vm-Lw 4209313951cda16f6bff8567dbaeffba
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WebSocket2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161002050816.GA8819@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32442
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 Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 03:18:49PM -0400, Van Catha wrote:
> > Is there request header to request no caching? There is certainly a
> > response header to request no caching.
> 
> I believe there is no request that can specify "don't cache", but I may be
> wrong.
> 
> > 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 think adding/using an unconventional method will be way beyond the scope
> of what
> is presented.  I do not think anyone will implement that?

Well, if one uses https://, then Websockets connections definitely have
unconventional semantics.
 
> > 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.
> 
> :scheme is perfect! Wow.  If we could pass ws/wss for example as the scheme
> that
> fits perfectly. Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.1
> the spec for schemes
> it seems ws and wss are perfectly valid schemes to use and are registered;
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml.

The problem with :scheme is that without the strict handling, you can
get oddball HTTP responses for unknown schemes.

But I guess it could be OK if you had extra response header to indicate
that the server supports WS and intends to establish one (no need for
request header, as the :scheme already impiles intent to establish a WS
connection).

> If we wanted to pass ws2, we would have to register the scheme which I think
> should not be a problem.  As ws2 will not be backwards compatible with
> ws/wss.  Would wss2 need to be included as well in this case?

I would say that WS2 would be a bad idea here, and one should reuse the
already-defined Websockets schemes.
 
> Where is the problem in HTTP/2 that would disallow schemes different from
> http and https, I do not see
> anything related to this?

Well, it doesn't disallow other schemes, just that servers might do odd
things with them (like e.g. ignore the scheme, treating it as https://).

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

Well, two above.


-Ilari