Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl

Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com> Tue, 21 June 2011 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <phil127@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CA511E8113 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.449
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9QrP5ieFTak4 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B0811E8111 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so2411436wwe.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=gmail.com; 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 10.227.55.7 with SMTP id s7mr4847895wbg.65.1308661869423; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [212.201.79.69] (pptp-212-201-79-69.pptp.stw-bonn.de [212.201.79.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m8sm3995029wbh.28.2011.06.21.06.11.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E00985E.9060301@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:10:54 +0200
From: Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
References: <BANLkTimduZjX6YG+X23yOvwxk5CwWW6=uRexcPjhHEUkLkwu2w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=ajW-bkr7OuXWhU12qSHs7m4hFzQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=igdtepNewwhk6F_Hro740Ye0ztbZzAGLgYL5NoWg1AQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=MzK_L1UZY1B3twP5pENbnAsgL-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=MzK_L1UZY1B3twP5pENbnAsgL-Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: 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://mydomain.org/chat and ws://mydomain.org/rss) 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
"XMPP-over-WS".

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

Regards,
Philipp Serafin