IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] comments on draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-00

gabriel montenegro <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com> Mon, 12 July 2010 10:19 UTC

Return-Path: <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com>
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 5F75E3A6828 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, 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 CvYkjkSeJiP2 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web82604.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web82604.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.201.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A05B3A6817 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 62578 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jul 2010 10:19:42 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1278929982; bh=jarCzlE9KUC8JrnTgRcuPuXLRqPE1dZ5n7GPR//rqAk=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZiwCPGGeHFoCR0gyxKO6cZfKRWKjApt5nJ50kj0Z60lHIBncN2spyqH5Gl3UYOkH6hvUESi/yV7Cl/1wOMolJlAFWUwDqrjlbc2hWKgWOoJDgnYb/QZ1/cvZEFuUjZAszT1u3qEhEiPwOlZPOmeU+3nSxVJKI5iEfhv9sEfwH38=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hCqXptCrJ+4eblXLpfMUyMqZuis1iIftTKSM5iqHV8uXrF0GGpdJwtbELggjpdnSbnRjgEcbpPZluQkXpVTkCtzsgliaF4we4Go7ARWelJfDKHsXE3YZvslj4jGzVU5T2teKkda1V+y4ECKwgSlBJZ6lZ0U+ORgnJ2xK1VXbP4M=;
Message-ID: <478779.60829.qm@web82604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: dcxaXDgVM1nUOXNnattDgZ8nMhNvHqrwlkxuAJzheyFxzBs YZHbyAXK6Nyu7Sd67eq9eR2k3siHr9FGEPQE8whg8bnYx4GD5uIfgpy3ipqU FK2C9diBTDz6PIbmvI9f3xhygTgfc8qgNtGqedfIWTPtI0a_Ns9xvghw28Qt BPJPh08tQEisxLw2QByBxJwEdgc08HKktSWmFD2Iugj05ne1K4OsBfylTnna a2ELkGpfumV_sPphqlxAbQRPD6W0ieN55SUfV0Uo96VLr9MmqBnZjfMO2o5P bfRQO8hs91gQTZ9_e2u5ndLwaY9duNf_wPkUe3dkvM4R48Zcu6SBZX4K.jut ksX5l6WZaoGtDq7SyQVQvtA--
Received: from [71.197.227.220] by web82604.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:19:42 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/397.8 YahooMailWebService/0.8.104.274457
References: <615374.65181.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <op.vfj9vfna64w2qv@annevk-t60> <564970.65690.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <op.vfl5hj0864w2qv@annevk-t60> <20100710063825.GB8207@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:19:42 -0700
From: gabriel montenegro <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100710063825.GB8207@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] comments on draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-00
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: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:19:38 -0000

Hi Willy,

Practically speaking, ports 80 and 443 are what 
will allow websocket connectivity to work, but I see what you mean.
Yes, specifying along the lines of RFC2817 might make sense. 


----- Original Message ----
> From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
> To: ; Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
> Cc: ; hybi@ietf.org; gabriel montenegro <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 11:38:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [hybi] comments on draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-00
> 
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 07:57:25AM +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On 
> Sat, 10 Jul 2010 03:30:10 +0200, gabriel montenegro
> <> ymailto="mailto:g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com" 
> href="mailto:g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com">g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
> >[gm] Hmmm... I was under the impression that the whole point 
> was to
> >start with HTTP and then via the Upgrade directive move into 
> the
> >WebSocket protocol. Or are you saying that there might be other 
> ways
> >to start other than HTTP?
> 
> Yes, but mostly I'm 
> saying that the requirements document should not
> constrain the design to 
> this level of detail.

But the original one is (unfortunately) even much 
> more detailed. So
maybe what should be done is to detail only the WebSocket 
> protocol
after the Upgrade, ensuring it works on top of raw TCP without 
> the
HTTP Upgrade, then add a paragraph explaining how to use it after 
> an
HTTP Upgrade when the port is shared.

And after all, that becomes 
> logical and clear. We could state that
by default, the WS protocol consists 
> in the framing we currently
see after the Upgrade. Clients explicitly talking 
> to port 80 SHOULD
use the HTTP Upgrade method. Those passing through proxies 
> must also
use the CONNECT method first (then either raw proto or HTTP 
> upgrade
depending on the port). That would leave all combinations 
> possible
and an easy way for the client to know which one to pick.

And 
> after all, that's precisely what RFC2817 already suggests for
TLS over 
> HTTP.

Regards,
Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email