Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl

Philipp Serafin <> Tue, 21 June 2011 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CA511E8113 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9QrP5ieFTak4 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B0811E8111 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so2411436wwe.13 for <>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XujMmXul7PFh9GyQheTZlEePQakDE1Zo8TkfFAJM/Ts=; b=tO0e9CVy34sLVmBMGw8TdQ3fcOOMQ/7AvXGtkgmF3HYQh1av/qZRTP32SOfXEmy8X2 gw1zLzyiVcvY3EIqYQwSZAMV78mrxojejYvSKSyEvfO9PDHZh7zmxq7LmMHUcISTsk+M 2B0HNKtWGAfiYorjDyW502TRPi58MqDqKuWYw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Urh3POyewOMJygNOAlzulrKMkcEZc1ExC1gkPHSD4v/+or0YKtXIgoFoyPyiP1TU+n IOjMWO5zYaAvrdSl7nl+IwJD2SasZ3svFMc2YvJAeX2W0F1OhiBR3tn2DVCVws3uv7A/ IGR9EBshgq5Py/5hKbXB6RQlCDfhc2Hxpezh0=
Received: by with SMTP id s7mr4847895wbg.65.1308661869423; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id m8sm3995029wbh.28.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:10:54 +0200
From: Philipp Serafin <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv: Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl
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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:11:18 -0000

Am 21.06.2011 13:47, schrieb Iñaki Baz Castillo:
> In fact, if Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header was not exist, I expect
> nobody would miss it. WebSocket services will be served by providers
> also providing the JavaScript code. Maybe a webpage includes a
> JavaScript code to connect to a chat and other code to connect to a
> like-RSS system. Webdevelopers will just enable two different WS URI
> (ws:// and ws:// and the JavaScript
> client will just connect to each one. No need of negotiation.
> Honestly I don't see the benefict of standarizing or negotiating
> subprotocols on top of WebSocket. Or maybe what I want to say is that
> I don't believe it will succeed (as web developers are anarchic by
> nature and they want to know exacty *nothing* about standars,
> protocols, IANA registry names and so on).
Wasn't the whole idea of WS sub-protocols that they are *not* maintained
by IANA or any other registry?

I agree that registration would be a burden that very few non-evangelist
web developers would take on for an arguably very small benefit.
However, if developers are allowed to use their own names "ad-hoc" (and
hopefully adhering to some kind of namespacing scheme), I believe this
could be very useful for frameworks and standardized web APIs developed
on top of WS - think of "OAuth-over-WS", "OpenID-over-WS" or

I believe there are strong use-cases for both using WS with sub
protocols and without, so both should be possible.

Philipp Serafin