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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 21 July 2011 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 3508A21F8574; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 v9zufBx7Kz+U; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847E821F856D; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so1269246qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.66.222 with SMTP id o30mr737740qci.189.1311291092916; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.185.195 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110721222952.GA18126@1wt.eu>
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> <CALiegfkk8G6_KE-KfL_RuF96NUbF6yZgcFfsNGtLoAr2=jcYjg@mail.gmail.com> <20110721173338.GB16854@1wt.eu> <9031.1311285127.963748@puncture> <20110721222952.GA18126@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:31:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnck+=iV8ttvmdXgsKM938ZhQWkxN_kLkzMCH6vzTMcUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:31:34 -0000

2011/7/22 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>eu>:
> You couldn't make DNS SRV mandatory for WS when WS starts with a protocol
> upgrade from HTTP which does not mandate use of DNS SRV : the DNS resolving
> had to be performed by the HTTP chain well before the connection gets
> upgraded to WS. If any existing HTTP component in the chain does not make
> use of DNS SRV, everything falls apart.

I understand that the websocket client is *co-located* within the
webbrowser client, but it's a different entity. Nothing prevents it in
using a different DNS mechanism.

Honestly I'm not reading good arguments against DNS SRV for WebSocket
protocol. Perhaps the topic about the HTTP proxies, but there should
be some way to deal with it without forcing WebSocket to inherit all
the limitations and poor capabilities of HTTP (when referring to
scalability and failover).

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>