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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Thu, 21 July 2011 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0072821F858C; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.668
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l3X08BxdMVV0; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (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 with SMTP id y36mr390245qce.227.1311265669336; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <> <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:27:49 +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 16:27:51 -0000

2011/7/21 David Endicott <>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