Re: [hybi] hybi Digest, Vol 80, Issue 1

Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com> Wed, 04 May 2016 04:25 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@adligo.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 9C78012D8B0 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kUTmnx6Jq0zg for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com (mail-ig0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BBEC12D5CF for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x231.google.com with SMTP id s8so38327473ign.0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 May 2016 21:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=v8iBLh+2HXMlCw3C8DKM9Y4YisWxLYqO7etO2Vz4Ijs=; b=b5zlwBnhY5BNz3DvyDkSHhsTClTF3M65RntLacb3bVPorjmpeyDJhvxgZ9kXQooq7I h+VIRiQbzpDsSbFLuHevbnljtbNvM0q/9cR0J3VL8OOha4kvZvT4RL0zqnINtXAQZ+an LvDsxo4HinHOgsen4EnCyFmEtF26+H4Jy4ti6A3VZYSCjytybLUOYoPxAGPdL2KJAl20 yNqHAMson8mGmvU8iLaZmbZxTzMP1lIJLQEV86X3NllaCXJkn6jznOMxNsHpI7g9BUWq e3SSnoIqMAgWOgEhZACmfO1+ZKzicXGEXaBoH/8oe1il5Q+ZNBtQUZpwMgc8B7Dad98e fGOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=v8iBLh+2HXMlCw3C8DKM9Y4YisWxLYqO7etO2Vz4Ijs=; b=CWb2HxchjEbyjtVmUq8hj14v8vGwMTxsrEdYzloVyvEtQalEvXM7DJ9fAhXBwClmV3 D9QHHrO0wzqzrFmDgPZ5PQ3UzNweCV5reK38UJcCLF/pRv+qmPryaQoxCzP8/qfUz4nz /VVnrsJ6KUiu2QDWNj/mQHVgohvxXK8IAw5bDkkqGF7PwrcZtMNwzrxx4ZB1fUlRIkGl sE26+/ItfwwfmuP7+xyDpYvXGWLE6UiGWcvf8Nsuq9ybY6i5b9OR2o03U+Gx6sf7oSeY 1YJTEiBtMuPNTJtAvN0urRKXY14dKyqAOH57h6Aclvn/XKUGAudgHjxkRM+8MQZZyXRy g9zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVOYZLFXImsS2TORNaVjHbzz13RDXOEH/Zx+ZpVPp9Xs50vQ27Vlfe2jZkPP0JE/QwBob+iUPOw5y3/+A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.30.73 with SMTP id q9mr32988533igh.77.1462335951354; Tue, 03 May 2016 21:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.39.80 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.119.1462215620.6549.hybi@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.119.1462215620.6549.hybi@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:25:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CANEdHmjp2YPbnhW5+=TOZ+bshbovuZ1wBk=pz84PapsVT8M8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc0a84ec57ff0531fc9e20
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/XKjlasjbwWvjQRE33L9wS0KfFC0>
Subject: Re: [hybi] hybi Digest, Vol 80, Issue 1
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 04 May 2016 04:25:54 -0000

Hi Martin,

  Just to respond to your comment;

>  Also, I don't think it makes sense to have different mappings for HTTP
> 1.1 and 1.0. The same most probably applies for 1.1 and 2.0, because
> they are supposed to be semantically identical.

   The main reason I went into detail in ASBP on various HTTP protocols
was the ability to send multiple frames over a connection in HTTP/2 (like
you
can over a WebSocket), which can't be done in HTTP 1.0 or 1.1.

  Also, I do think a 'Registry of Protocols Supported Over X' is a good
idea for
both WebSockets, HTTP as well as other base protocols.  It gives the
competing
protocols a level playing field / arena for discussion about their
respective pros
and cons.   In addition it provides a list of available protocols that
could be chosen from.

Regards,
Scott

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:00 PM, <hybi-request@ietf.org> wrote:

> Send hybi mailing list submissions to
>         hybi@ietf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         hybi-request@ietf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         hybi-owner@ietf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of hybi digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to
>       WebSockets (Martin J. D?rst)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:36:23 +0900
> From: Martin J. D?rst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> To: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>om>, <hybi@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [hybi] Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to
>         WebSockets
> Message-ID: <8c6c8096-9b52-396c-0e11-e1551af5a4d5@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>
> Hello Scott,
>
> On 2016/04/29 04:15, Scott Morgan wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I just wanted to point out that there is not always a hierarchy between
> > protocols.
>
> That's a valid point, at least in theory.
>
> > For example the protocol I am working on ASBP (Asynchronous
> > Services Bus Protocol) is intended to be layered on top of any of;
> >
> > WebSockets
> >
> > Http/2
> >
> > Http 1.1
> >
> > Http 1.0
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adligo-hybi-asbp/?include_text=1
> >
> >
> > In the ASBP case I would guess that I should register ASBP as a WebSocket
> > sub protocol, as well as a sub protocol for all of the above protocols.
>
> There's no registry for protocols over HTTP. My understanding is that
> this is essentially because the protocol/architecture (as explained e.g.
> by REST) of HTTP is essentially fixed, although of course it's always
> possible to find ways to bend or tweak it.
>
> Also, I don't think it makes sense to have different mappings for HTTP
> 1.1 and 1.0. The same most probably applies for 1.1 and 2.0, because
> they are supposed to be semantically identical.
>
>
> On the other hand, as far as I understand, the WebSockets sub protocol
> registry was created because WebSockets is not much more than TCP for
> the Web (the main difference to TCP being the message concept). So it
> looked prudent to create a registry to reduce the possibility of
> confusion one layer higher up.
>
> However, because WebSockets is usually used between two consenting
> parties (the browser which downloaded a Web page from a server, and that
> server), the Websockets Sub-Protocol Registry has been rather
> underutilized, and there are many usages of WebSockets without any
> explicit subprotocol.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
> > On the other hand perhaps the title 'Websockets Sub-Protocol Registry'
> > should be changed to 'Protocols Supported Over WebSockets' in order to
> > facilitate clarity.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hybi mailing list
> > hybi@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of hybi Digest, Vol 80, Issue 1
> ***********************************
>