IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] [whatwg] Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks

Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> Sat, 19 December 2009 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D2A28C110 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:11:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pIi7Uki2sBnn for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:11:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com (mail-px0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CBB3A6984 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pxi9 with SMTP id 9so2421910pxi.32 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:11:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fH0DVJk9YfXiCyDDo/Ccksn2grdL0LHQXy5b48VyVAU=; b=QgYzmH+CCim4UbA8rhf24Or5E5Qi3gaazTwgFyhZexyITvDyJHvBdJTXWSUh2hCTji e4XBlbE17p92YMD8bh1k1RIbYJR4E1hdA0gpqZ+SoR/aPiPd7PUDlZKva788qbKBXfxC uekJAXRUlUUEKhstuah3cg+X6bV1ldl/2Vjys=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=xsYI59uXhGoAqulek3T76SdS+aIraLzNxoq6OiRtHc2JF+JZ9EkNB+NlShCB/u8v7L 4S/11BA5dClSSkorgbPlLXj8F3qkrGMMd1S9GtSi8dH4Z+gL8mZD13+/IcYTAcPjKpU4 YVfnvYpzjM8FW0n+jVygnvPSPb+4RGPFrq52Y=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: justin.erenkrantz@gmail.com
Received: by 10.142.8.7 with SMTP id 7mr2950299wfh.338.1261185095628; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:11:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20091219005442.GA10949@shareable.org>
References: <557ae280911171402v7546e5e7n93a1e57f87dc10e5@mail.gmail.com> <557ae280911200711i5493e654k67c1f5f07336bfb9@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912032347360.15540@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4B2C1D52.9020505@webtide.com> <5c902b9e0912181640n497169cdrfa71f9a2908e6ef3@mail.gmail.com> <20091219005442.GA10949@shareable.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:11:35 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: be8b20458cbc9090
Message-ID: <5c902b9e0912181711o65f31266yd86b8db618a1dcb1@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, hybi@ietf.org, wfernandom2004@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [hybi] [whatwg] Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:11:58 -0000

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
> Given WebSocket's stated goals (on this list) of:
>
>   - Not working through HTTP proxies, including intercepting proxies.
>   - Not being HTTP compatible.
>   - Not being correctly parsable by a correct HTTP request parser.
>
> I'm thinking it would be easier to just use port 81 and be done with it.

Proxies (mainly reverse proxies) and caching are incredibly important
to any real scalability efforts.  I'm not aware of many high-traffic
web setups that don't rely upon massive amounts of front-ends.  So,
any port 80 traffic to any big sites is very likely to hit an hardware
box (F5, etc.) or a software balancer (a la mod_proxy or varnish or
squid).  If the current WebSockets ID is intended to *fail* in those
situations, the deployment story is likely to be a real non-starter...

I'm curious what the makeup of this hybi@ list/WG is - how many server
or intermediary devs are on this?  From browsing the archives, it
looks like it is mostly browser/user-agent developers so far.  --
justin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email