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

Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es> Tue, 19 July 2011 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <francis@aspl.es>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD1421F8797; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.149
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.435, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XS8QPa7zrCTb; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.aspl.es (196.Red-212-170-101.staticIP.rima-tde.net [212.170.101.196]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA69021F858E; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC541170002; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:51:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at aspl.es
Received: from mail.aspl.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dolphin.aspl.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oORB7JRK8WEU; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:51:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.132] (barracuda [10.0.0.4]) by mail.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130FB1170001; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:51:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki?= Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Organization: ASPL
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:51:32 +0200
Message-ID: <1311079892.23681.475.camel@vulcan.aspl.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:51:42 -0000

> As said before, making such DNS SRV specification an extension (so
> present in other document) will mean no success at all, as WebSocket
> client implementors (i.e. webbrowser vendors) will not be mandated to
> implement it and service providers could not rely on the support of
> DNS SRV in web browsers. So nobody will use them (because IE10 decided
> not to implement it, for example). IMHO this is sad due the real
> advantages DNS SRV provides for a protocol like WebSocket.
> 
> Yes, in HTTP there is no special DNS stuff, all the load-balancing and
> failover mechanism are done at server side with very complex and
> expensive solutions (www.facebook.com resolves to a single IPv4 !!!!).
> The question is: should we also inherit every HTTP limitation in
> WebSocket?

+1

It is little the effort for web browser implementors and will provide
lot of benefits to end users and developers which would be able to
provide scalable/configurable services easily. I'm with Iñaki: its usage
must be mandatory to really make it available in all browsers...