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

"Roy T. Fielding" <> Fri, 22 July 2011 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E657C21F8BA6; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.116
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.817, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9BwOxq1mlsU5; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E80821F8BB3; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF21C350078; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; q=dns;; b=fGWMx/MHZ1YlU5z5 gS5hiZhT+a+RRXacudhlZhoB38H2OYuGGZ4C1v7lXPUWJB6u+De0ZlACajLpUSBX Efh/qazf1o0fHGF9ii+FPRbG77MvVV/7vf5qLkQy5tNo8LPaweYZtnw1jIDDBGXs yZrtDj+fNNyuustcMP60Dzpk3kU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;; bh=TffqHLS29zu3oNU2se+sFK5jPys=; b=hRavpF39+4n2Zm+Ita5EJSnHHdWa BQB8H1KQtTUMhNHZPUpMQvfr8a6Dm93ib2dpmDwEkXK/FSKugquCUhKOhJXwNn/f zgHtQNZWep252J0rnUgTYT4uyJxmeGZK6FvPwdodD3XC4arpjb7cBnKv37rEILuY 20pFIFII9CDOhP4=
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC83B35005B; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:44:19 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:44:16 -0000

On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2011/7/21 Dave Cridland <>et>:
>> It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP; there is
>> no way it'll be possible to retrofit onto WS.
> Right. If WS borns with no SRV (as a MUST for WS clients) then just
> forget it and let inherit all the ugly limitations from HTTP protocol.

I am tired of this.  SRV is not used for HTTP because SRV adds latency
to the initial request for no useful purpose whatsoever.  SRV records for
XMPP and MX records for mail are useful because there is only one such
server expected per domain and it is *very* desirable to maintain central
control over that routing.  In contrast, HTTP is deployed in an anarchic
manner in which there are often several HTTP servers per machine
(e.g., tests, staging, production, CUPS, etc,).  AFAICT, WebSockets is
even more anarchic than HTTP -- it will have to be, given that the sane
network admins will block it by default.

In short, SRV is not used by the Web because it is inappropriate for HTTP.
I have seen no reason to believe that it would be appropriate for WebSockets.
If you want SRV to be part of the proposed standard, then you have to convince
the people implementing WS to use SRV.  None have done so, yet, so we can't
expect the editor to add it to the spec just because you have an opinion.