Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 18:05 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 5413D1297C2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:05:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.796 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.me
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 poDs86B7MYFw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:05:57 -0800 (PST)
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 BAF051297F1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:05:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cCsBP-00015A-F3 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 18:03:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 18:03:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cCsBP-00015A-F3@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1cCsBE-00012D-VO for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 18:03:29 +0000
Received: from o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.65]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1cCsB8-0001Zc-Iz for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 18:03:23 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=m4+4wAvrajULmkhccpR+5Ga24yY=; b=kFlnSdRdJ09TZtW9+T gOTFmTws8SHhdtgDjta9QobjHsgFulzLUTpU+sxT8g2Yu264apdTEEeYjCi7xn8J iFY9DvoDar5kvfHw8+1FBtexLMO5cmW1kL9LPTGZh12mIha8++Bume8O7Qj8EomK GsbHFZEWiJFaQoEVGyhAGpecM=
Received: by filter0803p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0803p1mdw1-5301-5841B736-67 2016-12-02 18:02:30.632374201 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com (mail-qk0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) by ismtpd0001p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id Y_OpD_g1Rf-5VPKx6ynE8A for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 18:02:30.642 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x190so286871385qkb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 10:02:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03MU/DPxtaEBYfltCg8T4wA+/5eIqLvb0tsaTGP0sk5spvv9kPvlR2z4n5g+ZGM15nNhIN4vdLpjht/qA==
X-Received: by 10.55.27.141 with SMTP id m13mr45906965qkh.28.1480701750513; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 10:02:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.147.78 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:02:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <220b575c-a953-a8fe-1591-00d1e676b201@gmail.com>
References: <CAOdDvNqk7W_oNWUismMb-ZuhvdboZNDQ0YV2BLsbka-FGC-7oA@mail.gmail.com> <39F32B28-7116-478A-B02A-E8310EA6E189@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVZeLQGES5Dige8u+ukSgqSfJNKiCuL=oK3gQnAb_3LNw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzwoUYaC_YPTTF6fdwN5aOiwrttyH9Xj7xYVR1i1DZ27bA@mail.gmail.com> <037D2D57-7423-4375-9FEC-50B3106F42ED@mnot.net> <CANatvzx=mOQ3kE-vnvwNvD2w26+RNTueHgu7BhHLnJixn0vRcw@mail.gmail.com> <9e6f1a46-a782-a688-5b16-836d28032823@treenet.co.nz> <1480646012.4219.21.camel@warmcat.com> <CAOdDvNqShPUdu6zt-dPDpXm31eP2xX_dahrTr8JEbOOGQFFNSw@mail.gmail.com> <220b575c-a953-a8fe-1591-00d1e676b201@gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:02:29 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpdxHWj97S=A+Xtf5k3aWfSWg6AStxji4PKemw=xnH_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpdxHWj97S=A+Xtf5k3aWfSWg6AStxji4PKemw=xnH_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11409a56db95350542b0bdf8
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh61XAjAwQ0Mw/OSeQvOmnZp/5NojKLGNIVSya R1V11p2H8+hMKlOdMwjLrjVB4tvHF9T/PDmVtQ3TU9yYzVv61J6OVl6JAtxgMu09YKey2Tj9wKLzMH OlbWwF5ssabDf6+TvdoyBPVHVm357v6uccHt5N7b7HW4bK9txdt1yYDFyhgrEIWyKRXV/lvRgeZPYe s=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.65; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.794, 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cCsB8-0001Zc-Iz 58de85bb71c710b9eae31c0528b4d1c0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNpdxHWj97S=A+Xtf5k3aWfSWg6AStxji4PKemw=xnH_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33092
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 Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com>
wrote:

> so that existing clients of WS subprotocol



you had me at subprotocol.

which one(s)? Pointers to definitions? It would be interesting to see how
well that mechanism took off - mostly I've seen it used for versioning.

but secondarily, sub-protocol negotiation is part of the js api so I
probably need a little clarification about what you have in mind as the gap
you objected to wrt subprotocol. Thanks.