Re: [hybi] comments on draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-00

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:48:41 +0200, gabriel montenegro
> <g_e_montenegro@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, but mostly I'm saying that
>>> the requirements document should not constrain the design to this level
>>> of detail.
>>
>> [gm] I think it is appropriate, given that we're supposed to be working on
>> what the charter set out to do:
>>
>> "  The Hypertext-Bidirectional (HyBi) working group will seek
>>  standardization of one approach to maintain bidirectional
>>  communications between the HTTP client, server and intermediate
>>  entities, which will provide more efficiency compared to the current
>>  use of hanging requests.
>> "
>>
>> That seems pretty clear about HTTP usage.
>
> Not to me. The main reason we are discussing what "HTTP compatible" means
> and how the "HTTP handshake" ought to look is because someone at IANA
> thought WebSocket should share a port with HTTP. It has nothing much to do
> with the charter. And frankly, it seems like things might be much easier if
> we did not share a port with HTTP.

Come again?  Reading the threads here on this very list, the main
reason was reach.  Arbitrary ports are not likely to be reachable
through firewalls.  I thought that this was the reason Websocket
wanted to "piggyback" on HTTP.

Reasons like "someone at IANA said" seem a bit awkward.  I'd really
like to see IANA's official response if that is the real reason.

Cheers,

Sander

>> [gm] Not sure the above was specifically related to the size discussion,
>> so perhaps I'm missing something.
>
> Effectively, too much detail for the requirements document.
>
>
>> There was some discussion with Greg about this. There is some overlap with
>> Req.5 which does not actually talk about sub-protocols. That term is not as
>> important as somehow capturing that different framings should be allowed
>> (with one native format for interoperability).
>
> That is directly contrary to the draft proposal we have today. It only
> allows clients to use frames that are defined in the specification.
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>