Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 21 June 2011 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 B1FFA11E808D for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.661
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EFEuxgcV1w2m for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD0311E807C for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so2450706qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.115.21 with SMTP id g21mr4844848qcq.230.1308656850849; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.181.209 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=igdtepNewwhk6F_Hro740Ye0ztbZzAGLgYL5NoWg1AQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimduZjX6YG+X23yOvwxk5CwWW6=uRexcPjhHEUkLkwu2w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=ajW-bkr7OuXWhU12qSHs7m4hFzQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=igdtepNewwhk6F_Hro740Ye0ztbZzAGLgYL5NoWg1AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:47:30 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=MzK_L1UZY1B3twP5pENbnAsgL-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl
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, 21 Jun 2011 11:47:48 -0000

2011/6/21 Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>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://mydomain.org/chat and ws://mydomain.org/rss) 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
<ibc@aliax.net>