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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 21 July 2011 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.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 0072821F858C; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 l3X08BxdMVV0; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F178F21F856D; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so1040769qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.44.36 with SMTP id y36mr390245qce.227.1311265669336; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.185.195 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP992=Ft6NwG+rbcuWUP0npwVNHY_znHmXmznBQO_krMo3RT6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <CALiegfk_GLAhAf=yEe6hYw2bwtxEwg9aJN+f0Bm9he5QgsRavA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=Ft6NwG+rbcuWUP0npwVNHY_znHmXmznBQO_krMo3RT6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:27:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmTWMP3GhS1-k2aoHHXkUkB+eWqV=2+BufuWVR1s2Z-EA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:27:51 -0000

2011/7/21 David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>om>:
> DNS resolution is not a function of a transport protocol.  DNS SRV has no
> special association with WS.    It is my opinion that this would be
> additional cruft that is only marginally related to the purpose and function
> of websockets.    It does not address a general use case.   DNS SRV applies
> only to a (small?) subset of server-side implementations.    It is a good
> and useful mechanism, but I do not believe it should be tied tightly to
> websockets, nor included as part of the core spec.

An WebSocket URI is given to a WebSocket client, and the client MUST
locate the corresponding WS server, right? and for locating the server
the client MUST follows a procedures which, for now, involve (if it's
not an IP) DNS A/AAAA resolution, right? So now imagine that the
location mechanism is a bit more powerful and also involves SRV
queries (not always).

If you think that a transport protocol (like WebSocket) must not
resolve a server destination then also remove the WS URI inspection
and resolution from the core spec, don't you agree? or just DNS A/AAA
is valid?

I don't agree with your opinion at all. Regards.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>