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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Thu, 21 July 2011 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA83811E8078; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.67
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nDVc6EqeA+9o; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A4111E8071; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so1430653qwc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id e38mr751382qck.151.1311290840508; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311279546.247694@puncture> <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:27:20 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: David Endicott <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <>, IETF-Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:27:22 -0000

2011/7/21 David Endicott <>om>:
> Do they?   A http uri and a ws uri have the same host/path construction.
>  It's really only the scheme that differs - and that identifies the
> transport protocol to be used.   Resolution of host name/addresses and
> mapping of paths "should" be consistent.
> WS is a connection that is semantically related to the URI of the request.
> e.g. I could ws://host/davesaid  and get live traffic of what Dave is
> saying, and then I could ws://host/bobsaid  and get traffic of what Bob
> says.  I wouldn't get Bob on /davesaid and I wouldn't get Dave on /bobsaid.
>    Dynamic content identified by a URI
> And if I http://host/davesaid  I could get a <li> of what Dave said.
> Static content of a URI.
> It could be problematic if  ws://host/davesaid resolves to a different
> address than http://host/davesaid.     (Or it could be advantage - not for
> us to decide, however)

David, this does not make sense at all. Let see this case:

c) sip:alice@google,com
e) ws://

Do you really expect that all those URI's should point to the same
server??? not, right? then, why e) should behave like d)?

And of course, protocols defining a kind of URI (specific for such
protocol) CAN and probably MUST also define how to locate such URI
destination. In case of http just poor A/AAAA is done, but in other
cases we all do know that other kind of DNS queries are done.

Iñaki Baz Castillo