Re: [hybi] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6455 (3473)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 14 February 2013 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@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 2528721F844F for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:46:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.929
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 lxlUoNu8ypSq for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (mail-ve0-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A5121F85EA for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id oz10so2304659veb.32 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:46:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JHDXcitYP7lJYViwDUlurOUqIbO9Iedm5hyQcf1N8tI=; b=B5yTTam0iulnuZuxSqvtYQdA1uU0COcG87E1nJNnpnaJ0C0I0meQJ6YE1bueukgPJE OSqcgfuLIlwJLfYOfVFy+juPWuaxLVtHZsUcQx8BZL24WViI1bmndMakJ+svosGslrrs eZtIvr8X6UzJwCYK15WCSFEic0TDwtBIurOGH9PpXs2FOvGXduCFa7+Ek14T5D7QXCGX LsLQkCqhuXZdTZLQzY28wns1+7/K7aK8xKs51BNrlyNsL7aur12HLwqTKz5v6Tujl1vW n8v9FCa7wlYgYIj38ALqutAQfCi/GVGYErqQ5Q8h4xxhh5i10GhIYsB+j2iCCqxMh32f fNsg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.98.104 with SMTP id eh8mr3214443vdb.20.1360860411536; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.59.3.41 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:46:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCob6en_Wu0cXmmZj5HxL8VHeri=5PRJM7TwWjfJy5zVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130201073846.78956B1E003@rfc-editor.org> <CABkgnnVO_qfFAKY28y_VL5vjXdUYtuAV5vNtFLpAFUk9zPiJkQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHixhFpR7SPWoiQrduDa5oDnss0GPQKa4ptroD0dVgP4+v7OqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUkq0bzVbq1Np=S03JHMtCatZ9GFwo2atnRxda_ukuLUw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCob6en_Wu0cXmmZj5HxL8VHeri=5PRJM7TwWjfJy5zVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:46:51 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ta95b24d-JDZyd7Vpvpkvv8ds7U
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDX_z-u4wyjeKgUs07==BuWT4Ne-wPPjrKk2Lc+TXU8nw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, Adam Rice <ricea@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, "ifette+ietf@google.com" <ifette+ietf@google.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6455 (3473)
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, 14 Feb 2013 16:46:53 -0000

Comment relayed (with permission) from someone who isn't subscribed to the list:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joakim Erdfelt <joakim@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [hybi] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6455 (3473)
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>

Sorry, i don't have access to the ietf mailing list.

Speaking as a developer of the websocket implementation on the Java /
Eclipse Jetty side ...

This section is really just for Web Browsers to implement, not a
general purpose requirement for the protocol for all use cases and
implementations.

Some scenarios ...

Web Socket Proxies.

many websocket users -> websocket proxy -> destination server

In this scenario, if the questioned part of the RFC is enforced, then
a websocket proxy cannot exist. as the websocket proxy itself would be
in violation.

Also, the requirements of the pending websocket mux extension makes
the language of this section in RFC6455 interesting.
Is this requirement placed on the desire to connect to the destination
websocket server (you can call this the logical connection), or the
physical connection?

Mux also makes the above proxy scenario fun to noodle out.

--
Joakim Erdfelt <joakim@intalio.com>
webtide.com
Developer advice, services and support
from the Jetty & CometD experts
eclipse.org/jetty - cometd.org