Re: [hybi] Redesigning the Web Socket handshake

Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com> Wed, 03 February 2010 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <fenix@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A2328C141 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:16:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.691
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zbq5eRSpbDNm for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.33.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6902F28C140 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.75]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o139GnjH001297 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:16:49 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1265188609; bh=gSWIPD+duuosYQXtkVPgEG16XRs=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=SHYinTQCy8dyV0Xrw5NdEsyejx3CUw/ejelI1NkZx6N84OVlbXtyAJLwSJc+1n5rC pXXkSqDO1szbM9upzaqng==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=VllUHzgxFh16uvCO8HKmepD99LedNAdg/0SpXHlRkcteRgHTUdQLAD1OJTPwH64oD qem63xo8bumcuOwzaLpUA==
Received: from pxi15 (pxi15.prod.google.com [10.243.27.15]) by kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o139GMeZ017547 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 03:16:48 -0600
Received: by pxi15 with SMTP id 15so1179910pxi.23 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:16:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.7.8 with SMTP id 8mr4783529wfg.339.1265188607659; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:16:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20100203032740.GU32743@shareable.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002012305000.21600@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B676E8C.70804@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002020311030.3846@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B679E2C.2080502@webtide.com> <1265146627.19627.52.camel@tot.local> <4B68A564.5000503@webtide.com> <20100203032740.GU32743@shareable.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:16:47 -0800
Message-ID: <ad99d8ce1002030116od959e92q55a691d3cc1f94da@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="005045017bd5889bb0047eaeadf5"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Redesigning the Web Socket handshake
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:16:10 -0000

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:

> Greg Wilkins wrote:
> > And I shouldn't have said Ian is not listening.  my apologies.
> >
> > He is listening. He's just not agreeing that it's a problem for
> > some HTTP developers to add extra constraints to the upgrade
> > response.
>
> I don't think that's true.  As far as I remember, Ian hasn't disagreed
> with that, only argued that it isn't sufficient reason to change the spec.
>
> Remember, what makes life easier for those piggybacking on HTTP
> implementations also makes life *harder* for those writing WebSocket
> clients and servers from scratch.
>
> However I do basically think the right balance has not been struck,
> and that HTTP-compatible (or HTTP-similar) header flexibility will
> benefit WebSocket-only agents in the long run too.
>
> HTTP parsing isn't a tenth as complex as it looks in the HTTP spec,
> and most HTTP rules don't need to be followed in this situation.  Even
> most headers can be ignored.  Nobody would care if continuation lines
> were rejected as bad syntax.
>


That reminds me that we've open sourced yet another HTTP parsing library.
-=R


>
> -- Jamie
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>