IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks

Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es> Tue, 02 February 2010 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <francis@aspl.es>
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 2C85B28C0D7 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:49:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.979
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.695, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
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 44pxMqqicQ4V for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:49:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.aspl.es (196.Red-212-170-101.staticIP.rima-tde.net [212.170.101.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155C23A6856 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DAE1170005; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:50:31 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at aspl.es
Received: from mail.aspl.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dolphin.aspl.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3J9MbIkJgi8B; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:50:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.132] (barracuda [10.0.0.4]) by mail.aspl.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E491170001; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:50:31 +0100 (CET)
From: Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es>
To: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <A3BBB919-B5AF-4D7F-930F-63D40DB1B902@surrey.ac.uk>
References: <557ae280911171402v7546e5e7n93a1e57f87dc10e5@mail.gmail.com> <557ae280911200711i5493e654k67c1f5f07336bfb9@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0912032347360.15540@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <4B2C1D52.9020505@webtide.com> <5c902b9e0912181640n497169cdrfa71f9a2908e6ef3@mail.gmail.com> <20091219005442.GA10949@shareable.org> <4B2C287E.1030006@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001310835410.3846@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <5821ea241001311219j111d25a3h27fb2d05a2ece32d@mail.gmail.com> <A3BBB919-B5AF-4D7F-930F-63D40DB1B902@surrey.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: ASPL
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:50:31 +0100
Message-Id: <1265133031.4450.549.camel@vulcan.aspl.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Web sockets and existing HTTP stacks
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:49:58 -0000

> We already have BEEP for framing over TCP and to avoid
> head-of-line blocking. 

Right, but Websocket design should be closer to a TCP connection than an
application protocol so people can layer whay they want...

> What would be wrong with that, apart
> from the fact that BEEP is already dead?

Why you state this? 

-- 
Francis Brosnan Blazquez <francis@aspl.es>
ASPL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email