Re: [hybi] Websocket success rates and TLS extension.

[Justin Erenkrantz <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> In conversation (not in the link above), Mike indicated that
> most of the port 80 failures were after connection (hinting
> at intermediary issues with websocket), while most of the
> 61985 failures were failed connections (suggesting the port
> was just blocked).

That's a useful data point...

> To me, this suggests that if websocket is going to
> be workable over port 80, then we definitely need to
> engage the intermediary vendors so that the 37% failure
> rate can be improved.

Yes.

> Having a fallback to TLS over 443 will also be vital to
> initial deployments.

Indeed.

> I also talked to Mike about the possibility of SPDY using
> websocket as transport.   The issue for SPDY is that while
> the framing of websocket is probably sufficient, they are
> very sensitive to the time taken to initiate a connection.
> Typically they want to use several connections to display
> a page and every round trip establishing a connection
> is latency on the critical path to render the page.

Sorry for being dense - there are too many "they" in this paragraph
for me to parse it properly.

In particular, the sentence:

> Typically they want to use several connections to display
> a page and every round trip establishing a connection
> is latency on the critical path to render the page.

In this paragraph, I think "they" == "Web Socket" - as we have not had
the channel/multiplex discussion yet and some have said that it should
not be needed at all.  *If* there is multiplexing, then I think this
round trip setup-time is minimized.

But, I'm not quite clear if that's the intent of your statement.  -- justin