Re: [hybi] Multiplexing in WebSocket (Was: HyBi Design Space)

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Tue, 13 October 2009 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.com>
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 89A353A6947 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 NxALMaMfvMSb for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8758B3A68F3 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 22so85552fge.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.86.22.12 with SMTP id 12mr7057563fgv.69.1255477481788; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.10.1.9? (60-242-119-126.tpgi.com.au [60.242.119.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm861980fge.7.2009.10.13.16.44.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4AD510D7.3050405@webtide.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:44:23 +1100
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
References: <4ACE50A2.5070404@ericsson.com> <3a880e2c0910081600v3607665dp193f6df499706810@mail.gmail.com> <4ACF4055.6080302@ericsson.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910092116010.21884@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <3a880e2c0910100853s6650d216mc53e8f70a192a896@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910132333430.25383@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910132333430.25383@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Multiplexing in WebSocket (Was: HyBi Design Space)
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, 13 Oct 2009 23:44:47 -0000

Ian Hickson wrote:
> If there are specific application level protocols layered on top of Web 
> Socket that could benefit from caching, then nothing stops intermediaries 
> from understanding that sub-protocol, including any multiplexing it might 
> itself support.


Ian,

you often cite "protocols layered on top of Web Socket" as a panacea.

While layered protocols are theoretically possible (and even
desirable), I do not see that websocket is being setup in a way
to make this practically possible.

So can you describe how you foresee such protocols being layered
on top?

If you think this can be done in javascript libraries, then how
do you see multiple frames, tabs and windows being handled in
a secure way?

If your vision of the server side occurs - where developers write
websocket implementations themselves (like CGI scripts), then
are they going to have to all write these layered protocols as well?

regards