Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 07 December 2010 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 0CEE53A68E0 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:52:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 A4TUnula55cR for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B564D3A68DA for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.2.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2333E22E1EB; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 19:53:52 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimzQyG4hugOvHqoNrBrZFA4fGbGXQ7MZ2i+68dO@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:53:49 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BB947F6D-15AA-455D-B830-5E12C80C1ACD@mnot.net>
References: <AANLkTin6=8_Bhn2YseoSHGh1OSkQzsYrTW=fMiPvYps1@mail.gmail.com> <20101126000352.ad396b9a.eric@bisonsystems.net> <AANLkTimzQyG4hugOvHqoNrBrZFA4fGbGXQ7MZ2i+68dO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade
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, 07 Dec 2010 00:52:37 -0000

I don't think that's the relevant aspect here. "Another port" could be port 80 or port 443 (nasty, and you wouldn't make it the default, but I think you see where I'm going). 

The question is why it's necessary to run both HTTP and WebSockets traffic over the *same* port simultaneously -- something that AFAICT is taken as axiomatic, and I'm really wondering why.

Cheers,


On 26/11/2010, at 11:55 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> The problem with another port, is that the success rate of  opening an
> arbitrary port through firewalls is not that high.     Thus if
> websocket was allocated it's own sockets, then there would still be
> need for a websocket over 80 protocol (eg like there is BOSH for
> XMPP).

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/