Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Sun, 24 July 2011 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E065921F8B06; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M01ws4Kjq9J9; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56C121F8B05; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so662065qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id y36mr2768805qce.227.1311532129178; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <> <> <> <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:28:49 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: Willy Tarreau <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <>, Server-Initiated HTTP <>, IETF-Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:28:51 -0000

2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau <>eu>:
>> And I'm really tired of hearing the argument of the "latency" which
>> nobody demostrates (but just talks about it without replying me how
>> the same is not a problem in realtime protocols like SIP and XMPP).
> Because you have never worked in a mobile phone environment. You'd be
> amazed to see what end users are paying for ! Count 300-500 ms on average
> for a DNS request.

Well, mobile phone world is a pain due to GPRS/3G internet
connections. But those networks should be improved rather than
assuming that all the Internet must change to work on those infernal
environments (which IMHO are not yet ready for modern internet). All I
see in mobile networks are workarounds.

>> Could you explain me why DNS A is good but DNS SRV is bad in such
>> "anarchic" deployments?
> DNS is not mandatory for HTTP. It's not "DNS A" which makes it good, but
> "no mandatory DNS". This is a huge difference.

So, do you mean using URI's with IP rather than domain? (take into
account that TLS connection require the certificate to match the URI
domain, but anyhow it's also possible to use IP's within the


Iñaki Baz Castillo