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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Wed, 27 July 2011 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.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 F38A921F85BB for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, 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 01V8ShLs5DuS for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BC921F85B9 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC061168087; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:19:44 +0100 (BST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net
Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9GVBHOx-DN57; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:19:41 +0100 (BST)
Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 97F4F1168067; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:19:41 +0100 (BST)
References: <CALiegfnYm6g63JDHLiSH__r-or3kzK0XCVa3cC7RMP14KWBOSg@mail.gmail.com> <20110724120751.GQ22405@1wt.eu> <CALiegfncavmoMp4YDCeeJ3rsOfHAYQ99itKX2Q2eHB351T3X5A@mail.gmail.com> <20110724184537.GZ22405@1wt.eu> <CALiegfne620wuDMAp235n3mVcXTAnbhhNm8vpiNCy5F7+VD92A@mail.gmail.com> <20110724192948.GD22405@1wt.eu> <CALiegf=e48kkF+Gky1mY7LippUB-0kZDgSGZrJxk1aZupAGkYw@mail.gmail.com> <20110727012806.EBB811231907@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20110727052549.GB4086@1wt.eu> <9031.1311786432.357811@puncture> <20110727171334.GB7979@1wt.eu> <4E30545E.5070702@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E30545E.5070702@stpeter.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <9031.1311797981.604127@puncture>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:19:41 +0100
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:19:48 -0000

On Wed Jul 27 19:09:34 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> [dropping ietf@ietf.org]
> 
> On 7/27/11 1:13 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 06:07:12PM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
> >> On Wed Jul 27 06:25:49 2011, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:28:06AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>>>> SRV provides load-balancing and failover. I never said that  
> SRV
> >>> is a
> >>>>> solution for temporaly put in maintenance a server.
> >>>>
> >>>> Happy eyeballs however does allow you to take a server out of
> >>> production
> >>>> and not really notice it.  Note webbrowsers have had the  
> ability
> >>> to do
> >>>> this for as long as webbrowsers have existed.
> >>>
> >>> Mark, could you elaborate on this point ? Surely you're not  
> talking
> >>> about
> >>> the fact that a browser retries a failed connection, but I'm not
> >>> not sure
> >>> what mechanism you're talking about.
> >>
> >> Happy eyeballs - try everything as soon as you can, in parallel.  
> Drop
> >> everything else when one does.
> >
> > This sensibly increases load on servers with useless connections,  
> and
> > is counter-efficient in mobile networks where sending uplink  
> packets
> > is the limiting factor !
> 
> Guys, it feels like you're playing ping-pong here. It's fun for us  
> to
> watch the ball go back and forth, but we're not moving forward. Can  
> you
> see a way to make progress toward consensus?

No.

The opinion seems to be that WebSockets must resolve in precisely the  
same way of http URIs, and as such it's not clear to me what benefit  
a new scheme has. This means in order to sway opinion on WebSockets,  
which operationally are likely to behave far more like XMPP and SIP  
services, with long-lived connections and state, we have to also sway  
opinion on using SRV for HTTP, where the benefits are more marginal  
(due to the status quo, having solved the problems in hardware,  
mostly) and the costs much higher (due to the higher number of  
connections in HTTP).

Furthermore, at least one browser vendor has clearly stated they  
would not implement SRV lookup even if the specification mandates it.

As such, it seems pointless wasting my time and effort on this.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade