Re: [hybi] Straw poll: Do you miss interjectable WebSocket level control frame? (was: Re: Discontinuation of mux ...)

[Francis Brosnan Blazquez <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tobias,

> I don't think this should be removed from RFC6455.
> 
> The extension mechanisms of RFC6455 allow for flexible design of
> WebSocket extensions. Being able to interject existing and new control
> messages, and to interleave multiple data messages is part of that
> flexibility.
>  
> Also: there seems to be an outburst of "lets remove X" from RFC6455
> initiatives lately.
> 
> Not sure, but it's my impression that these are all related to the
> desire for some kind of WebSocket-over-HTTP2 protocol. And more so: to
> mold RFC6455 so that it "fits into HTTP2".
> 
> I don't agree with that approach. I think HTTP2 should take WebSocket
> "as is", if it wants to act as a transport instead of attempting to
> redefine it. Or define it's own messaging (not bound by WS). 

+1

I couldn't express it better, plus the fact it took a long road to reach
RFC6455....*and*
there's a lot of software out there running on production env assuming
current WS
definition.

Best Regards,