IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@intalio.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 011023A6CD6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:26:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.317
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.659, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
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 4f4kXxDXqOQV for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F0B3A6CF0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:26:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so6281324qwg.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:27:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.174.8 with SMTP id r8mr7951339qaz.332.1291228060144; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:27:40 -0800 (PST)
Sender: gregw@intalio.com
Received: by 10.220.167.203 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:27:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimi5HL56PD9gLHUWs=mcbV3Eaz=GOsK38sxPevb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin6=8_Bhn2YseoSHGh1OSkQzsYrTW=fMiPvYps1@mail.gmail.com> <20101126000352.ad396b9a.eric@bisonsystems.net> <AANLkTimzQyG4hugOvHqoNrBrZFA4fGbGXQ7MZ2i+68dO@mail.gmail.com> <4CF615B2.9010304@rowe-clan.net> <F96E5CE9-CA7D-4B70-8260-F05456D021FB@gbiv.com> <AANLkTimi5HL56PD9gLHUWs=mcbV3Eaz=GOsK38sxPevb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:27:39 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: c_eky2PKosmW0ZzSv3UjB2bbQII
Message-ID: <AANLkTimydOwRiVkrZn0zmxmvWP_V6yAmNbipOF73NBWD@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade
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: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:26:36 -0000

On 1 December 2010 19:01, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> wrote:
> That seems like a matter of perspective.  When opening a connection to
> a WebSocket server, can one not view the server as a proxy sever?


If Websocket was allocated it's own dedicated port (say 6543 for example),
then opening a connection to some.host.com:80 and sending

  CONNECT some.host.com:6543 HTTP/1.1

would definitely be like a proxy server (and it could even be
implemented that way, although I expect many servers would optimise
out the trombone).


But I'm not sure that

 CONNECT some.special.token HTTP/1.1

could be consider a proxy or in the spirit of the HTTP spec.


regards

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email