Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protocols

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Fri, 05 March 2010 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.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 63ABA3A8CAB for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:28:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 7myAEjPZO7DM for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:28:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1473C3A8965 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:28:16 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7c2dae000007b99-a5-4b9131210826
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 5A.0A.31641.121319B4; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:28:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:28:18 +0100
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:28:17 +0100
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8E1277F for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:28:17 +0200 (EET)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE624F022 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:28:17 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DD84EC7C for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:28:15 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4B91311F.20109@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:28:15 +0200
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hybi@ietf.org
References: <4B8ECA2D.4050303@ericsson.com> <4B9118DC.6030301@webtide.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B9118DC.6030301@webtide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2010 16:28:18.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCD62D20:01CABC80]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [hybi] Requirement: extensions and sub protocols
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: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:28:18 -0000

here we are talking about *protocol* requirements
it is not the right place to discuss about the actual solution(s).


what we have to decide clearly is:

1) do we want WebSocket protocol to be an extensible protocol? yes or not?

2) if yes, how do we want this extension be designed
     I mean as extension of the WebSocket (at same layer)
     or as possible layer on top of Websocket.

so please provide feedback on this not on the actual solution.

of course we have to keep in mind that all the extensions MUST not 
complicate
the *basic* protocol of a bit!


cheers
Sal

Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com

On 03/05/2010 04:44 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> I think we need to decide who will be doing the extending
> and creating new subprotocols.
>
> Ian appears to be advancing the position that if it can't
> be done in javascript via the websocket API, then it can't
> be done.  Moreover, that if you are not doing it in javascript
> then you shouldn't be using websockets.
>
>
> I disagree with that position (which is hopefully
> somewhat close to what Ian actually is saying).
>
> I think that extensions are most likely to be
> implemented transparently below the API or
> in the path to the server.
>
>
> Examples that come to mind include:
>
>    Browser implementing a simple multiplexing standard
>    to make all websockets from the same tab/window share
>    a common connection.
>
>    Browser implementing compression.
>
>    Firewalls acting as aggregators and combining
>    multiple base connections into fewer multiplexed
>    connections to the business servers.
>
>    Appliances doing SSL offload and converting wss to ws
>    connections with injected certificate information.
>
>
> I also think that there will be extensions done
> in javascript by frameworks/applications, but by
> definition they work above the API and need no more
> support from the base protocol than the API already
> provides.
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>