Re: [hybi] The future of WebSockets, and the WiSH proposal

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.com>
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 B29CB12708C for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=webtide-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BH6o1KjIhcKd for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E91B81204DA for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id u70so12839693ywe.2 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=webtide-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RHw/JVbr3+BGtIel5C51Lv1eine9TfsdtyMwWknF1ZQ=; b=NLiNJRfzTzEdZv/qZOX35hu+nX+qFkLu2dPf6zAjNNHBT2oUV3oRYGCJ3GOO6f/BV8 4YU6h3f/HPCj9QMWRzPC13QphYe+p5gJXAUEBtY6/6jGzUGCizJlh7gxpWtpM3mODgZU Wl2mnHOPw445XjIAsHBlwV7KBUQvYeo6N4fqustU7HS4AZLONGBAOn2WbsH1dFFE9rZL HrVEqFZSVD4AEqwP2//15BdmFRw8nOWj+Iyl4KYj0yRjrjrW6S1oH/KVzIS3QG1wmcEl xNp86HM/e+IIkudpAvoRTjXw1tQv8Bh8btGrGWG68wjdplZ7eXw9rCmeRrcGaRYGGHCg tM9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RHw/JVbr3+BGtIel5C51Lv1eine9TfsdtyMwWknF1ZQ=; b=AsKCStyhzdzzQHDb8hXoalYgVMV0FRbNOrQFnVnZPt0RspQse65UF/ll/9I7kmuFQE apOaBOoCv4XwIVYPIhhL0h9VxeOumo+ROsUvr3Qc5rDCAoP3aeKFXE8N9TtpW3wfw8lq 0U3nDAaTeM6veVS8Ygj4ud/Fh6JFN/12LdWiItHW0e6si1Px11F4X4GeQ24L8cI01V6b mADPk5yPHF64BFP2uwfYc0CpBMv9T2zT3xTjWIvi5s0QuVXEkZc+wGgU8NxJPQFaoqCS X+ZZrNLuvRRlDE0nAcyiZOJsoAssOYu+/fdjezGU5IExbzGKdbD3OqlPnw9VQG10+bQ1 PoGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4EpUswwoPKfrAChPLBxHmlgoryP62vc2vnQjx386sMD15O+IJ2 kGslbHWolEQ9N3tplrH4Fo6iTn1BHQkjw1ZWow==
X-Received: by 10.129.91.132 with SMTP id p126mr900813ywb.255.1493285816089; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:36:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.45.82 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:36:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAPGdfEb64R0M5j5QeFeAX3jCwpfCZgJNgJwYgudv1aHxFGxxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c78629dd807054e22b253
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/4eFfO4V-CbzpsO6hKxwaRIjgzMo>
Subject: Re: [hybi] The future of WebSockets, and the WiSH proposal
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:38:42 -0000

Takeshi,

I note that in your drafts introduction you say:

> when HTTP/1.1 is used as the underlying protocol, full-duplex
> communication may
> be broken if the client, server or any proxy chooses to buffer or reject
> earlier 2xx
> responses


Which is a clear and accurate statement of the key problem facing any
forever-frame based transport, regardless of what framing protocol is used
within those forever-frames.  So while using the standard WS framing is
admirable, as is the usage of bidirectional communications, I do not see
why this is any more than WiSHful thinking that buffering or simplex
proxies will prevent universal coverage of the WS semantic.

So if I understand your intent correctly, you wish to define WS over HTTP
semantics in a way that is transport independent, so it will work for both
HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 so that WS can benefit from the single connection muxing
available in HTTP/2 when that is available.

The problem with this approach is that the HTTP semantics just does not
support full-duplex streaming transport and thus it is bound to fail now
and potentially in the future when new proxy standards may be developed.

I think the effort would be better spent working with the HTTPbis working
group to get the WS semantic accepted over HTTP/2 framing in a way that
distinguishes the content from a normal HTTP message that might be stored
and forwarded.

regards









-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> CTO http://webtide.com