Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 25 July 2011 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8150021F8531; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DqTFQezuUvPk; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB54A21F8532; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCEA21072; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:47:42 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=A2D czvwhzff1lO+chGu9XEEHWP8=; b=EtUJWqb4Btjp7qZ7Z6hrpXEC+t/Yy1DfT+n 6TPmEwDFSMP3jDSi5zsB1lYEYNokbJwwXgn7YB7ziX40Zr6NG4kQQ6V3D1Evo5pF 2M6wMvG7xdyZAdQ9rnKfdKnt8MlXCpNscuTEJM+eZLdsYYEMm//jo9/Ffs2w8Qn8 0hO94iOY=
X-Sasl-enc: gkQJXl+I8idj7FuMj6NM7NEUIYzyuA3Ec1WJCixRf+QD 1311562061
Received: from [192.168.200.118] (modemcable114.145-70-69.static.videotron.ca [69.70.145.114]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03340413373; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:47:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7-394893780
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110724073323.EEAAF121E985@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:47:39 -0400
Message-Id: <4B3C19FD-B736-4DA7-9DB5-3D433320DCBC@network-heretics.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <CALiegfk_GLAhAf=yEe6hYw2bwtxEwg9aJN+f0Bm9he5QgsRavA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=Ft6NwG+rbcuWUP0npwVNHY_znHmXmznBQO_krMo3RT6g@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmTWMP3GhS1-k2aoHHXkUkB+eWqV=2+BufuWVR1s2Z-EA@mail.gmail.com> <20110721163910.GA16854@1wt.eu> <CAP992=FrX5VxP2o0JLNoJs8nXXba7wbZ6RN9wBUYC0ZSN_wbAg@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <CALiegf=pYzybvc7WB2QfPg6FKrhLxgzHuP-DpuuMfZYJV6Z7FQ@mail.gmail.com> <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4@gbiv.com> <20110724073323.EEAAF121E985@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:51:40 -0700
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 02:47:45 -0000

On Jul 24, 2011, at 3:33 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> How do you solve the problem of hosting just "http://example.com/"
> on "s1.joes-web-service.com" and not redirect everything else at
> example.com?  People have been complaining about this for about as
> long as the web has existed.

Well, in a way, that's what NAPTR was for.  All of the UR
i resolution mechanisms (equally applicable to DNS-based URIs) that were developed and never really used grew out of the original realization in the early 1990s that CERN could stop hosting the original web pages if it wanted to, and there was no way to keep those links from going stale.

The problem never went away, but the DNS-based solutions were defined a long time ago and never used.   By now, I think the market has long since decided.  For better or worse, the mechanism the market chose to use with the web was HTTP redirects.

Keith