[hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback?

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Sun, 28 November 2010 23:48 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:49:25 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=UpWdjqU0Lkh11wSGtHVDO71_CvjWJyH4mPyQi@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636d35282ff585e0496259a00"
Subject: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback?
Precedence: list

So tell me again why we don't just ask IANA for a websocket port?

Browsers can try to port and if it fails to connect they can fall back to
something like BOSH over port 80.
This get's us through firewalls and keep port 80 for HTTP.

I think that is the right technical solution (use ports for what ports were
designed for) and avoids the growing conflict over usage of port 80.

cheers

[hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Alakkad, Achuth (GE Healthcare)
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Brodie Thiesfield
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Peter Saint-Andre
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Martin J. Dürst
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Jamie Lokier
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Greg Wilkins
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Jamie Lokier
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Dave Cridland
Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback? Jack Moffitt
[hybi] WS handshake using BOSH? Alakkad, Achuth (GE Healthcare)