Re: [hybi] New port and Tunneling?

["Shelby Moore" <[e-mail]>]

> Shelby,
>
> Maybe I've missed something in recent threads, but how is WS/HTTP more
> vulnerable to data corruption?
>
> cheers

Perhaps I misunderstood the issue.  Do some proxies monitor and filter the
data, and may make mistakes because they think they are looking at HTTP,
because they didn't properly recognize the Upgrade handshake?  And maybe
other scenarios?  I really don't know.  I don't have enough experience
with proxies.

Also I read that certain data patterns (e.g. unencoded binary) can not
traverse all proxies safely.  I realize perhaps we can avoid these known
patterns, but doesn't that imply there might also be some unknown
collisions?

>
>
> On 16 August 2010 10:51, Shelby Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On 16 August 2010 10:24, Shelby Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 07:03:05PM -0400, Shelby Moore wrote:
>>>> We must have that fallback no matter what we do.  All options forward
>>>> have
>>>> failure cases.
>>>>
>>>>> If I had the choice, I'd rather go for
>>>>> WS/TLS with a quick fail to WS/HTTP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WS/HTTP can fail at random times after that quick fail, you still need
>>>> Comet/BOSH.
>>>
>>> and Comet/BOSH can fail at random times.
>>> All solutions need to handle the fact that the internet can fail
>>> silently.
>>>
>>> I do not think it is possible to design a system that will always fast
>>> fail, other than an explicit declaration by a participant that a
>>> protocol is not supported.   It is impossible to design a handshake,
>>> whose success will guarantee the delivery of a subsequent websocket
>>> message .
>>>
>>> The only real evidence of a protocol working is the protocol working.
>>> The level of confidence in the protocol will be determined only by
>>> mechanisms built into the protocol: messages, keep-alives, ping/pongs
>>> and any extensions for acknowledgements etc.
>>>
>>> There is no silver bullet.
>>
>> Strong point, but won't the WS/port+tunnel (over TCP or equivalent) only
>> fail-to-deliver and never corrupt, whereas WS/HTTP could corrupt the
>> data
>> (and will not support some data types at all, need encryption)?
>>
>> Also WS/HTTP is likely to fail more often during data transfer (after
>> initial handshake) given reasonable robust networks.
>>
>> So they are not equivalent failure costs.
>>
>
>