Re: [hybi] Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks

[Pieter Hintjens <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think you first said WebSocket should use a different port from HTTP
> because it's a different protoocol, yet here you're saying a different
> port for WebSocket does not have proper justification.
>
> Also I don't see what putting WebSocket on port 81 has to do with secure
> versions of a protocol.
>
> Can you clarify what you mean?

This was discussed some time ago on this list.  IANA will hesitate to
allocate two ports to a new protocol when one is sufficient.  SSL/TLS
is easy to handle as an upgrade.  We had this exact discussion on the
AMQP working group.  Further, asking for two ports in the sub-4096
range (especially port 81!) is asking for rejection.  (It seems
unbelievably optimistic-slash-something to ask for port 81...!)

Failing to get port 81 does not give Web Socket the right to break the
contract on port 80.  Thus this feeble argument:

* We followed the rules and asked for our own ports 81 and 444 (iirc) :-)
* IANA said no to our request! :-(
* We were pointed to port 80 by IANA :-/
* So we're allowed to do what we like on port 80! :-)  Yay!

Sorry to be critical but I have arguments like this with my six year
old daughter and even she knows it's untenable.

-Pieter