Re: [hybi] Straw poll: Do you miss interjectable WebSocket level control frame? (was: Re: Discontinuation of mux ...)

[Takeshi Yoshino <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Tobias Oberstein <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Takeshi,
>
>
>
> it's my impression that this whole thread has reached some kind of dead
> end.
>
>
>
> There is one camp of people which would see "Plan D" (that is pure/raw
> tunneling of WS over HTTP2) as both sufficient and suitable.
>
>
>
> "Plan D" can provide a "scalable transport for the WebSocket API", and can
> also be actually called "WebSocket tunneling", since it maintains the whole
> WS semantics.
>
>
>
> "Plan D" also does not restrict RFC6455 design space (including any
> extensions) in any way.
>
>
>
> And this, I _do_ care about: the integrity and design freedom of the
> WebSocket protocol.
>
>
>
> So from a Chromium developers point of view, what is missing in "Plan D"?
>

I basically agree with you for most of the points here, but cannot ignore
input from Roberto. I've been also struggling to adopt WebSocket for Google
infrastructure and facing various difficulties which includes additional
complexity for introducing new protocol. I'm not saying Google is the only
target, but we need to respect large scale loadbalancer developers'
perspective.


> FWIW, we are interested in developing a WS extension
> ("permessage-priority") that supports message priorization (and could also
> support multiple logical channels).
>
>
>
> From a Chromium developers point of view: are you open to consider other
> options of reaching your goal: "scalable transport for the WebSocket API"?
>

Yes. But sorry I haven't got a chance to read through your proposal yet.


>
>
> /Tobias
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Takeshi Yoshino [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 24. Februar 2014 23:36
> *An:* Tobias Oberstein
> *Cc:* Yutaka Hirano; Peter Thorson; Roberto Peon; [e-mail]
> *Betreff:* Re: Straw poll: Do you miss interjectable WebSocket level
> control frame? (was: Re: [hybi] Discontinuation of mux ...)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Tobias Oberstein <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I don't agree with that approach. I think HTTP2 should take WebSocket "as
> is", if it wants to act as a transport instead of attempting to redefine
> it. Or define it's own messaging (not bound by WS).
>
>
>
> I want to understand what you mean by this, Tobias, and maybe Peter.
>
>
>
> As one of Chromium developers, I just want to build and use a scalable
> transport for the WebSocket API. For this goal, it doesn't matter whether
> HTTP/2.0 works as a transparent transport or not. There's no such
> implication in the term "WS/HTTP/2.0" at least when used by me.
>
>
>
> What Roberto and Martin are suggesting sounds like one to be categorized
> as "define it's own messaging". Some of Yutaka's plans, too. What's your
> actual position for them. Not the best option for you but not against?
>
>
>