Re: [hybi] More feedback on WebSockets

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Tue, 27 October 2009 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.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 1145228C15C for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.242
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 dPoB54SEnt8Y for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0133A6945 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so161067bwz.29 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.15.16 with SMTP id i16mr6553175bka.72.1256676635548; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.10.1.9? (60-242-119-126.tpgi.com.au [60.242.119.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 16sm18510bwz.7.2009.10.27.13.50.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4AE75D12.4060302@webtide.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:50:26 +1100
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hybi@ietf.org
References: <FDC38D4B-AB64-4F6B-B569-81D7A56DEC8D@mnot.net> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910270912040.9145@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4AE6C7D1.30003@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910271834480.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910271834480.25616@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [hybi] More feedback on WebSockets
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:50:25 -0000

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> I disagree that the current handshake isn't like HTTP enough, though. 
>>> The request is fully HTTP-compliant. What value would there be in 
>>> relaxing the rules on what WebSocket clients should send in the 
>>> request? I don't understand the real-world case you are concerned 
>>> about.
>> What about a load balancer in front of the server that inserts a cookie 
>> or X-Forwarded-For header into all HTTP requests that it forwards.
>>
>> This will probably be harmless with regards to the subsequent WS 
>> connection, but it will break the handshake so there will not be a 
>> subsequent WS connection.
> 
> How do such load balancers handle pipelining?
> 
> If they support them, then that means they are almost certainly 
> incompatible with WebSocket, as far as I can tell, and we would _want_ the 
> connection to fail.

They all are different.  But many just look at the first request on
a connection and then just treat the rest of the connection with
packet forwarding.   So that type should work.

Others look at every request and will probably not work.

regards