Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.

Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <simone.bordet@gmail.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 6D3C33A69E6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, 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 tvpdD7jKyRhX for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA003A6939 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so1036929qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SkOshu0chKB4BZlwmx7wMh63hduW44X3Q5DEFr1hORI=; b=Ruxp78MdTo7/FJPwNzcXcDUPpGhp1Mn9KYVlVxt8wChh7GKjvfJkCNLzox9bMESb1q MCWqtp2S/38QAzeJhDK0+sMblW3b0Ihn/y+E5Lcrql9PjQNN1Sl4yj67ZYL97i6H3KcU HSNhEdXgY4cr18fKc8V06K1JQGqDjwbRxGRO4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Vlai4oL5lVYhrzYiKTfg5deiacp50rR2RRvmlTSYi5MOviIJiDnF8e5CB1xl7Cxtp3 ISXDU6ZuIgNWNSgIr9mVr4dylyv5Je7NCsmD8/JXnXLjfmrt9U4Rm3SYmdV+T+ThCVez 3DOzo8iE4DWJfdj0TSXhdIKw/n3GcsQf35vNc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.54.68 with SMTP id p4mr2315823qag.114.1285321537568; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.224.68 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=_TYM1vZrZYBoSu+8j9WrSXfaZ42EMRmnF3rnz@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikszM0pVE-0dpZ2kv=i=y5yzS2ekeyZxtz9N=fQ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikczXMx9XSY4jGaVwh5LndRTTLg==+LPj=JmiGk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=_TYM1vZrZYBoSu+8j9WrSXfaZ42EMRmnF3rnz@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:45:36 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimiee7ikrG=iz3qtj1unSi+sWy0M50_7vgUSTbd@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Voronin <alexander.voronin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.
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, 24 Sep 2010 09:45:08 -0000

Hi,

2010/9/24 Alexander Voronin <alexander.voronin@gmail.com>:
> To my mind is enough to send 101 or 501 if websocket is not implemented on
> server or intermediary. You are making things too complicated and implicit.

Am I ?
I think Willy showed how intermediaries could already discard bytes
without closing the connection (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg02149.html).
I was just asking for a clarification from the proposer about the case
of a client receiving the 101 but not the ping.

Simon
-- 
http://bordet.blogspot.com
---
Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are,
to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability,
the implementation technique must be flawless.   Victoria Livschitz