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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Sun, 24 July 2011 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 9AFEA21F8B66; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 00:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 9OFYKIrVH22E; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 00:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7A821F8AFA; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 00:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5D635F9919; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:34:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:6233:4bff:fe01:7585]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E5D8216C84; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:33:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAAF121E985; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:33:23 +1000 (EST)
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <CALiegfk_GLAhAf=yEe6hYw2bwtxEwg9aJN+f0Bm9he5QgsRavA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=Ft6NwG+rbcuWUP0npwVNHY_znHmXmznBQO_krMo3RT6g@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmTWMP3GhS1-k2aoHHXkUkB+eWqV=2+BufuWVR1s2Z-EA@mail.gmail.com> <20110721163910.GA16854@1wt.eu> <CAP992=FrX5VxP2o0JLNoJs8nXXba7wbZ6RN9wBUYC0ZSN_wbAg@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <CALiegf=pYzybvc7WB2QfPg6FKrhLxgzHuP-DpuuMfZYJV6Z7FQ@mail.gmail.com> <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4@gbiv.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:44:19 MST." <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4@gbiv.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:33:23 +1000
Message-Id: <20110724073323.EEAAF121E985@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 03:52:22 -0700
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <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: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:34:27 -0000

In message <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4@gbiv.com>om>, "Roy T. Fielding" writes:
> On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 
> > 2011/7/21 Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>et>:
> >> It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP; there=
>  is
> >> no way it'll be possible to retrofit onto WS.
> > =
> 
> > Right. If WS borns with no SRV (as a MUST for WS clients) then just
> > forget it and let inherit all the ugly limitations from HTTP protocol.
> 
> I am tired of this.  SRV is not used for HTTP because SRV adds latency
> to the initial request for no useful purpose whatsoever.

How do you solve the problem of hosting just "http://example.com/"
on "s1.joes-web-service.com" and not redirect everything else at
example.com?  People have been complaining about this for about as
long as the web has existed.

> SRV records for
> XMPP and MX records for mail are useful because there is only one such
> server expected per domain and it is *very* desirable to maintain central
> control over that routing.  In contrast, HTTP is deployed in an anarchic
> manner in which there are often several HTTP servers per machine
> (e.g., tests, staging, production, CUPS, etc,).  AFAICT, WebSockets is
> even more anarchic than HTTP -- it will have to be, given that the sane
> network admins will block it by default.
> 
> In short, SRV is not used by the Web because it is inappropriate for HTTP.
> I have seen no reason to believe that it would be appropriate for WebSocket=
> s.
> If you want SRV to be part of the proposed standard, then you have to convi=
> nce
> the people implementing WS to use SRV.  None have done so, yet, so we can't
> expect the editor to add it to the spec just because you have an opinion.
> 
> ....Roy
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org