IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Ping/Pong body (was Re: TSV-Directorate review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-07)

Brian McKelvey <theturtle32@gmail.com> Thu, 19 May 2011 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <theturtle32@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993CAE06C2 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2011 18:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJ-h3Pq+AXts for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2011 18:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E43AE068E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2011 18:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so1365575pwi.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2011 18:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from :subject:date:to; bh=fhSFdLS4tBPhCV/3eP47uetNrptuYoYuMTM/HcPmgzs=; b=dmFFuEA+jpWH9QY3XDSbf7V3sQX5CJeqv8zh3sCzoSCibE8evTIVKV4lrLUTgjulNx 4qYqdMFzmW4Wn4MFjdBLNb0742tqMhKWxo3plxAe3DtCyV3QYAzmozl3/RnvWZiaFYT5 MwqONLFHAM9CbMJPdlB9MsOYGyxjMk/1CXE+Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; b=Phgi/CfoikZ1Rit/wJsEadGe1140I90QMYwF/d9LcIt9YhnoLehkx82HydVxVK5rJm vQ6BFU3yoO8zE7cYg6KbU9oOJnMXDw6iTFwVYivsC8lP3I5lTP63vQlwK+E4+dTAfttV U7D1JlZQszRxFUDF1zQIN/exLnrhiNirc0MNE=
Received: by 10.142.218.15 with SMTP id q15mr1498459wfg.311.1305768248846; Wed, 18 May 2011 18:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.109.211] (mobile-198-228-208-002.mycingular.net [198.228.208.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v6sm1338701pbc.27.2011.05.18.18.24.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 18 May 2011 18:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
References: <ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA292C6A81E4@TK5EX14MBXC206.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <F390D8D1-335B-4595-93A2-0741DD693559@gmail.com> <ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA292C6A85DE@TK5EX14MBXC206.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <BANLkTimg6Z8rs+SDp-HX+FzJQukKndWqkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimg6Z8rs+SDp-HX+FzJQukKndWqkg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8F190)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <83059ABD-9F8A-49AB-86AB-B6345CDD9C39@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8F190)
From: Brian McKelvey <theturtle32@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 18:23:59 -0700
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Ping/Pong body (was Re: TSV-Directorate review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-07)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 19 May 2011 01:24:09 -0000

Indeed.. It's simpler for the protocol to state that a pong should be sent in response to a ping and leave it at that.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 18, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> On 19 May 2011 10:43, Piotr Kulaga <piotrku@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Personally I do not see any point of allowing multiple outstanding pings. If
>> a sender did not get a response to first of them, sending another one
>> probably will not increase its chances. To me, saying that only one ping is
>> allowed is a simplification of the protocol which does not limit protocol’s
>> functionality.
> 
> 
> I agree that multiple outstanding pings do not initially appear useful.
> 
> But then I don't see why we need to restrict it to only 1.    Either
> it will not have a use and thus nobody will send multiple pings,  or
> somebody will discover a use and we should let them.
> 
> 
> cheers

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email