Re: [hybi] updated Charter proposal

[Salvatore Loreto <[e-mail]>]

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>   
>> Somewhere in the text we need to make it clear what kind of intermediate
>> entities we're talking about -- does that include entities which are in
>> some sense HTTP-aware or HTTP-optimized (proxies, load balancers,
>> caches, etc.) or also entities that are in some sense more generalized
>> (firewalls, network address translators, etc.).
>>     
>
> Firewalls and NATs are quite important to HyBi.  Because the server
> can't initiate connections, it's necessary for connections to be kept
> open as long as the client wishes to receive messages.  Firewalls and
> NATs need enough keepalive packets to stop them blocking a connection
> in mid use.  And "ping" requests with responses from one side are
> not the most efficient way to do that.
>
> HyBi may also need a strategy to cope when a firewall or NAT
> spontaneously blocks a connection in the middle of it's use too.  That
> might be deferred to the application (bet lots of them will get it
> wrong if so), but it should at least be addressed.
>   
I agree that we have to take in consideration Firewalls and NATs during 
the design of a Bidirectional protocol
(both short and long term), and this is extremely important for HyBi.
However the HyBi wg should not have any ambition to improve the 
Firewalls and NATs, but only design a protocol that
cooperate well with them and improve the existing HTTP entities to 
improve the interaction with the existing Firewalls and NATs.

cheers
/Salvatore
> -- Jamie
>