Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.

Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 09:19 UTC

Return-Path: <simone.bordet@gmail.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 229D33A6A3D for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.414
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, 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 JF-oztEoX+9p for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DD93A6A61 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so1006906qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=es1nvZJk6p9EhiHZ+5d+5bLfawhQaRsNZ4yTErbTWko=; b=ZJ2AEy46PACEdDY8uGX7pEVpCgLE+O0qgY7ej1bHQXQqTE8Lzj0IkdqthIt1sa1nVP YZ+CYj7eT9RlYNPahGZnHbqmhmJnP/ddgsUHUWvdFfris7OuixMyRSS1eZFEOh4e6Adi hNlBSEUOIYk1V9GoWT618LzOvh4hJ1RvQb+dg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZKqeUPGrYBQnlDeKa+K4DBpYLeha1JV6Bp2XmZwo5rSVnbZ/EfwjRZSUmKGGm08wH7 U44veV3FDVq8HFb0KIqwxYtnS/VD7L5AopY+5T2Q06NpG4SdkFfhR5i5UndN5sXbbsse dDsxHgSximWu0wUtNk0oZvdr0p7VBJvec6oT4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.2.134 with SMTP id 6mr2236429qaj.214.1285320006068; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.224.68 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikszM0pVE-0dpZ2kv=i=y5yzS2ekeyZxtz9N=fQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikszM0pVE-0dpZ2kv=i=y5yzS2ekeyZxtz9N=fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:20:05 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikczXMx9XSY4jGaVwh5LndRTTLg==+LPj=JmiGk@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Alexander Voronin <alexander.voronin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.
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: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:19:41 -0000

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 21:06, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
> The upgrade response does not need to wait for any non-HTTP data, so
> there is less potential for blocking. The server can send the ping
> (which may fail if an intermediary closes the connection on the 101)
> and then immediately start sending application ws frames while waiting
> for the pong.   The client has to wait for the 101 as it does already,
> and then it can wait for the ping as well.    I assume it already had
> a timeout for the 101 response, so this should not be any extra
> complexity.

Just for sake of clarity, if an intermediary discards the websocket
bytes because it does not understand them, but does not close the
connection, the websocket client will receive the 101 but not the
server ping, so the client waits a timeout before closing itself the
connection, right ?

The server can then assume that all the data it sent after the ping
was lost because it did not receive the client pong.

+1 for me also on this handshake.

Simon
-- 
http://bordet.blogspot.com
---
Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are,
to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability,
the implementation technique must be flawless.   Victoria Livschitz