Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Tue, 21 June 2011 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FFA11E808D for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.661
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EFEuxgcV1w2m for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD0311E807C for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so2450706qyk.10 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id g21mr4844848qcq.230.1308656850849; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:47:30 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl
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, 21 Jun 2011 11:47:48 -0000

2011/6/21 Takeshi Yoshino <>om>:
> As Iñaki noted, subprotocol negotiation can also be done over application
> layer. The only benefit of subprotocol field in the opening handshake is
> that we can finish subprotocol negotiation in the first round-trip time (in
> an extreme case, this can also be done by embedding subprotocol choice in
> URL string and replying by the first frame from server).

In fact, if Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header was not exist, I expect
nobody would miss it. WebSocket services will be served by providers
also providing the JavaScript code. Maybe a webpage includes a
JavaScript code to connect to a chat and other code to connect to a
like-RSS system. Webdevelopers will just enable two different WS URI
(ws:// and ws:// and the JavaScript
client will just connect to each one. No need of negotiation.

Honestly I don't see the benefict of standarizing or negotiating
subprotocols on top of WebSocket. Or maybe what I want to say is that
I don't believe it will succeed (as web developers are anarchic by
nature and they want to know exacty *nothing* about standars,
protocols, IANA registry names and so on).

Iñaki Baz Castillo