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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Thu, 21 July 2011 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02E121F86E6; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.669
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsEPcJN9cSQ8; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC35A21F876F; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so1254102qwc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id o30mr510052qci.189.1311271825000; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:10:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <> <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:10:24 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: David Endicott <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <>, IETF-Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:10:39 -0000

2011/7/21 David Endicott <>om>:
> I am strongly opposed to any MUST definition for any type of URL resolution.

SIP and XMPP mandate (MUST) a resolution mechanism based on NAPTR, SRV
and A/AAAA records. Are they also wrong? do you also oppose to the DNS
MX resolution (as mandatory) for a mailto: URI? Do you imagine that a
mail server admin could not assume that SMTP clients would always use
MX resolution as the first choice? annoying that you say that, sorry.

> I'm ok with inheriting / mimicking HTTP.    Since it is intended to live in
> the same universe as HTTP, I'm ok with it sharing mechanisms / limitations.

Yes, I assume many people in the HTTP warden is fine with this. That
is the problem: forcing a *new* protocol to inherit ugly limitations
just because "people is used to them". I don't understand how you can
prefer to ignore cool NEW solutions/mechanisms. This should not be a
valid argument in a new protocol design.

Iñaki Baz Castillo