Re: [hybi] [tsv-area] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-35.txt

Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Fri, 04 September 2009 05:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ian@hixie.ch>
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 D773C3A67AC for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.981, 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 JBEJF8pqaWD1 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from looneymail-a1.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A54D3A657C for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hixie.dreamhostps.com (hixie.dreamhost.com [208.113.210.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by looneymail-a1.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2F315D574; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:52:04 +0000
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <4835AFD53A246A40A3B8DA85D658C4BE01368948@EVS-EC1-NODE4.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0909040551290.6775@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
References: <20090816093001.319053A692F@core3.amsl.com> <015CC5B3-A697-46D5-B76D-3BC609A4E13D@nokia.com> <4835AFD53A246A40A3B8DA85D658C4BE01368948@EVS-EC1-NODE4.surrey.ac.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB-hixie
Content-Style-Type: text/css
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] [tsv-area] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-35.txt
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, 04 Sep 2009 05:50:14 -0000

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
> I don't see the reason for Connection: upgrade / Upgrade: WebSocket as 
> the handshake mechanism.
> 
> Surely a Content-* header (say: Content-Upgrade: WebSocket) is better, 
> as it will be explicitly dropped and 501'd by proxies or by sources not 
> supporting web sockets? (per section 9.6 of RFC2616.) That way, you know 
> when the handshake has failed...

You know when the handshake has failed in the current system too. I don't 
understand why we wouldn't use the explicit HTTP mechanisms for this.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'