IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Call for interest: multiplexing dedicated for WebSocket

Simone Bordet <sbordet@intalio.com> Mon, 27 May 2013 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <simone.bordet@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 EB5BF21F8FAF for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZfRLAtdEJwBG for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E76721F8F5D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x10so6252330pdj.29 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UcSZDdIeggty+MtSEaU3yo9Oz9uq9DlAbRmAf4HcX0Y=; b=PoyrtdaJgAOcsUHyWrXzrICZ+vZz7Fx9fhoCuC9zPyhvJ7fOw97TesjjwjlLKRyp2+ 8GeVjJrmMjQK5FDi4n/JZvsFJ7gA3DzLQPaSBQ/D0lZf74yjL05EqrVp9r7sTh+CT0SA ptEM86ZoBFTp+I+1uo9YxVHKuCG91vol3kbkztJCJOJ3zfGxezy5vHrgwsdBES0OESZ9 Ac5h7UON9M5s+M0v8qvC+XuW7U/zAtEz2ZMME33eaRvMcXJ8Czof9XTDGL2AUJjcJn6f 63QBJUlOpIFj8C0kzbk/YRXMPXKIRlCKf/MpbOGNFwMlqTKyDUAZESPKpElrri6Uw8o+ Vkpw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.67.22.66 with SMTP id hq2mr28366905pad.131.1369644452645; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: simone.bordet@gmail.com
Received: by 10.68.147.8 with HTTP; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH9hSJYOPvsFPDXLOa29ASd8xavLdvfRK_cVd=Uc=Vaydz1O=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH9hSJZxr+aG7GZa4f-dUOTGj4bnJ+3XxivUX4jei5CMyqN4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZUG1f+3Uk=t2=A5i4O9=wPvAisspM=pgmGEH9emTL9-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZai_UuxW4O6mZcEJT2DJoURtLo16XNci1qkYVWv4HVdg@mail.gmail.com> <007501ce56f0$67f74080$37e5c180$@noemax.com> <519CD6A1.7080708@ericsson.com> <519CE075.4000106@tavendo.de> <CAM5k6X9WmO80hiQZ6_GqK66PAd3of=2ZRi9=VrWj52apA1+=5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFWmRJ2Hbe0x5FeV2T7Gkp3WEsxQHe2=YPBTgvHYLcus3A4rBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJYOPvsFPDXLOa29ASd8xavLdvfRK_cVd=Uc=Vaydz1O=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:47:32 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: K9uolKnaCaly2SzQcm5rtI_LGCM
Message-ID: <CAFWmRJ2M0Gtoz80+6v+=0Ldm9+xE2brqD2shVcBPuNz+QGiKHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simone Bordet <sbordet@intalio.com>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Call for interest: multiplexing dedicated for WebSocket
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: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:47:37 -0000

Hi,

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> wrote:
> Isn't it in-app priority? Can't script and server address that problem? If
> only the client knows current priority, the client can tell the priority to
> the peer servlet using a WebSocket message. If the server know priority for
> each position, it can just control transmission speed.
>
> Even if we need help by the server, the servlet would call some special
> function to tell the server about priority.
>
> Different from HTTP/2.0's case, we don't need to provide a special field in
> mux protocol to pass priority, I think.

Sure, but then you force every application to reinvent this mechanism
on top of WebSocket mux.
At that point, one could argue that application messages could have
their own "channel_id" in their messages, and applications can do mux
themselves, if they need it.

--
Simone Bordet
----
http://cometd.org
http://webtide.com
http://intalio.com
Developer advice, training, services and support
from the Jetty & CometD experts.
Intalio, the modern way to build business applications.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email