Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

[Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]>]

Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Intermediaries can know about websocket framing and so long as
> > all sub protocols and extensions are restricted to adhere to
> > websocket framing, then intermediaries can continue to work
> > regardless of sub protocols.
> 
> I'm not sure I buy the premise that we want intermediaries to
> understand and/or interfere with the websocket protocol.  It seems
> more robust and more secure to establish a point-to-point encrypted
> tunnel between the user agent and the server.

More secure, but higher latency and slower.

Going by the "each application on each open web page should open its
own connection" approach, and encrypted tunnels enforcing that, as
well as enforcing TLS setup latency for each one, *much* slower than
HTTP.  Not to mention the torrent of idle keepalives with so many
connections.

Less robust - I put together an alternative to Ian's "tic tac toe"
using long-GET HTTP.  It's a similar amount of code with a similar
structure, and as far as I can tell fails in all the exact same
scenarios, except for one: The HTTP version keeps working after a NAT
or SPI router times out in the middle.  The WebSocket version breaks
at that point, because it won't detect the broken TCP connection or
create a new one.

One of the not so obvious strengths of HTTP, which probably wasn't
deliberate design, is it recovers well from contemporary TCP-breaking
routers.

-- Jamie