Re: [hybi] Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 01 February 2010 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.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 8861D28C172 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:59:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.198, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 0HtifsvKNPDZ for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08AA28C16C for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o11FxRxO001265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:59:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1265039989; x=1265126389; bh=xOAo0yOmTPyYl5FUOkX93yha+5BXrWB/RTZ9Sexui0Y=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=kP3o1LlXtW08XOaNLIHGZGhxLmKHBJ5/ZtKcPRCE4fuF7pDCgBj7XIF/5UlCJYgp4 ii0f8x/o+jHqXD0iEcjZJswd0mKfufDDg9EdYPPvjMQ4N+wLQk0cMg1FHvg7Lhhr8e AG46MaBA4jlLYx82isORR0sxLqbwXXNZI4SYxubQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=dcxkI+g5ug7y1SF9qXpkZ+JVHmTQA3qB3YMa8U0QtKG++dJgg7b+e6coSNk+2Lssk wvi+gY9NE/9rZx13ewpBKb8zYo31jSBPuQ1ywkt5CA35f5b9nFD12bYGxMDB56pFK8z 2zPs6l4ol2zKu3ebqBn38dZm7flU0d+sxLlD5dE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100201054814.07f9bc18@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:26:05 -0800
To: hybi@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100201105240.GD20940@shareable.org>
References: <557ae280911200711i5493e654k67c1f5f07336bfb9@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912032347360.15540@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4B2C1D52.9020505@webtide.com> <5c902b9e0912181640n497169cdrfa71f9a2908e6ef3@mail.gmail.com> <20091219005442.GA10949@shareable.org> <4B2C287E.1030006@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001310835410.3846@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <5821ea241001311219j111d25a3h27fb2d05a2ece32d@mail.gmail.com> <20100201012914.GC20940@shareable.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20100131205550.06e1c700@resistor.net> <20100201105240.GD20940@shareable.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [hybi] Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks
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: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:59:18 -0000

At 02:52 01-02-10, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>I'm confused by your apparently contradictory position.

My comment was about the points that may be raised.

>I think you first said WebSocket should use a different port from HTTP
>because it's a different protoocol, yet here you're saying a different
>port for WebSocket does not have proper justification.

If you are writing a protocol which requires a specific port, use a 
different port.  If you can do HTTP Upgrade, run it on the HTTP port 
(this should not be read as an encouragement for all applications to 
run over the HTTP port).  As I mentioned previously, you will have to 
provide proper justification if you require an assignment in the 
well-known port range.  That generally means documenting why the 
alternatives are unsuitable for your application.

>Also I don't see what putting WebSocket on port 81 has to do with secure
>versions of a protocol.
>
>Can you clarify what you mean?

Two ports were requested.  The second one was for the secure version 
of the protocol.

Regards,
-sm