Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Tue, 26 July 2011 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE70021F8C3B; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.349
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0DCzfhbsPIPk; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B71821F8C38; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so174477qwc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id y36mr480884qce.227.1311674321537; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <9031.1311286867.939466@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311538720.416128@puncture> <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:58:41 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: Willy Tarreau <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <>, IETF-Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:58:42 -0000

2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau <>eu>:
> To ensure nobody gets me wrong, I'm certain this can help solve issues
> *if this is optional*. If it becomes a MUST, then the negative effects
> will override the positive ones. In my opinion, the client should decide
> whether to enable it or not.

But I don't understand how a client is supposed to decide by himself
how to resolve a URI destination. If I give you my vcard containing my
SIP/XMPP/MAILTO URIs, I must expect that you would use *standarized*
mechanisms to locate the server for each service. In fact, in all
these cases (SIP, XMPP; MAILTO) the URI domain can point to several
IP:port (due to NAPTR / SRV / MX DNS records).

BTW: I know that any web browser would first lookup at the /etc/hosts
file when an URI is introduced. This would "replace" a DNS A/AAAA
query. Maybe NIS or whatever could also be used for this. It does not
break SIP/XMPP/MAILTO URI's resolutions: Initially NAPTR / SRV / MX
query would be performed and, if there is no such record (or there is
so we get hostnames for which DNS A must be performed) then the client
can check /etc/hosts for the "A" resolution (domain -> IP).

Iñaki Baz Castillo