Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets
Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> Tue, 27 July 2010 00:59 UTC
Return-Path: <mjs@apple.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 5821F3A68F0 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 G4XwrvUzubbH for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9423A6861 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92971A5783B4 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807130-b7ca5ae000007de4-5d-4c4e2f98e483
Received: from gertie.apple.com (gertie.apple.com [17.151.62.15]) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 4F.9F.32228.89F2E4C4; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Received: from [17.151.110.76] by gertie.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0L66003IZYS8HK30@gertie.apple.com> for hybi@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007270030120.24444@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:00:08 -0700
Message-id: <1C4FD851-5145-4283-B13D-1AFAFF293DD2@apple.com>
References: <ECF0E97F-1DA2-4662-BA48-F68B65AA8179@apple.com> <4C4D66AF.9030905@opera.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007270030120.24444@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAZE=
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for 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 Jul 2010 00:59:48 -0000
Ian's suggested timeline below sounds like an excellent way to proceed, in my opinion. - Maciej On Jul 26, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, James Graham wrote: >> >> I think a different goal would be a better statement of Ian's intent: >> >> "Websockets should be the minimal layer on top of TCP needed to meet the >> additional requirements of browsers" > > Yes, I think that's an accurate description of what I mean. > > > There are two parts to the protocol: the handshake, and the framing. > > The handshake has basically three purposes: 1: allowing the protocol to be > served by a server that also serves HTTP on the same port; 2: protecting > existing servers and future WebSocket servers from cross-protocol attacks; > 3: allowing servers to host multiple domains and resources on the same > IP/port combination, while supporting the browser origin security model. > > The framing has one purpose: provide JavaScript applications running in > Web browsers with a way to send and receive text messages to and from > WebSocket servers. > > > There are a number of ways that we can make the protocol also support > other goals: > > - Compression of frame data > - Sending and receiving binary data > - Allowing messages to be annotated with metadata* > - Allowing multiple JavaScript applications from the same browser to > share a connection to a server (multiplexing)* > > All of these could be supported by future backwards-compatible changes to > the protocol, by having the client advertise support for each feature in > the handshake, and having the server opt-in to using that feature. None of > these changes require fundamental changes to the handshake. > > Two of these, marked with an asterisk above, can also be implemented by > script; therefore a good way of determining if they are truly needed is to > deploy the protocol as is, and to see if people work around the lack of > that feature by implementing it themselves. If they do, then the feature > is needed and we should add it. > > The other two features are clearly needed regardless, and we should add > them in the near future. (Adding features piecemeal leads to more > compliant client-side implementations, so we should not add them now.) > > > Here's a proposed timeline for adding these features: > > - We fix any critical bugs (not feature additions) in the protocol as it > stands today (next 4 weeks). > > - We deploy the protocol in four or more major browser vendors (next 4 > months). > > - When binary support in WebGL is stable, we add binary support to XHR, > WebSocket, etc (a matter of months?). > > - We look at how the protocol is used (another couple of months). > > - During this time, we build client and server test suites for the > protocol. > > - We add built-in support for the features that are needed based on > implementation experience (about 6 months from now), including > compression, multiplexing, per-frame metadata annotation, etc, as > needed. > > - We update the test suites. > > > I think it would be a mistake to add every feature we can think of right > away, because doing so would mean that we added features before their need > was proven, and it would lead to much less conforming client > implementations. This dynamic has been proven time and time again with Web > technologies; we should not repeat that mistake. > > It would also be advantageous to allow implementors to experiment with > ideas like multiplexing before we add the feature to the protocol, since > it would let us use their implementation experience when designing the > extensions to the protocol. Only by first getting the basic protocol out > there and then experimenting with it can we really find how these ideas > work out in real deployments. > > > (Thanks to Ian Fette for providing a sounding board for some of this.) > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > _______________________________________________ > hybi mailing list > hybi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Mike Belshe
- [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur progr… Maciej Stachowiak
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Willy Tarreau
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Willy Tarreau
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… James Graham
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Maciej Stachowiak
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Julian Reschke
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… James Graham
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Micheil Smith
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Dave Cridland
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… James Graham
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Adam Barth
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… James Graham
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… John Tamplin
- Re: [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future … Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Protocol simplicity and the "amateur p… James Graham
- [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Ian Hickson
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Maciej Stachowiak
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Rob Sayre
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Michael Carter
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Anne van Kesteren
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Anne van Kesteren
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets John Tamplin
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Anne van Kesteren
- [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future revi… Ian Hickson
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Maciej Stachowiak
- Re: [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future … Simone Bordet
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Dave Cridland
- Re: [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future … Thomson, Martin
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets gabriel montenegro
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Thomson, Martin
- Re: [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future … Willy Tarreau
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets gabriel montenegro
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Willy Tarreau
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Adam Barth
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Willy Tarreau
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Dave Cridland
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Anne van Kesteren
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Lars Eggert
- Re: [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future … Pieter Hintjens
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future … Dave Cridland
- Re: [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future … Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Adding clarification regarding future … Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Jamie Lokier
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets John Tamplin
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Dave Cridland
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Anne van Kesteren
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Greg Wilkins
- Re: [hybi] Proposed way forward for WebSockets Anne van Kesteren