IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
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 8F4823A6CC5 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:32:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.472, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
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 6aoogNHihTqo for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFB233A6C93 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oB1IXqTb014984 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:33:53 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1291228433; bh=WuNGfW6sg15pI/TJy4Ojj2ypEA4=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=aez+6EKnbjPeiQYayY1UFeobn3+5dEhlmHZ08ewaM15Yqxrp3kP0yxpfUP7rAb2oU Ahytjv5AuPNGLjxlNCZsg==
Received: from ywl5 (ywl5.prod.google.com [10.192.12.5]) by wpaz13.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oB1IXpsO024866 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:33:52 -0800
Received: by ywl5 with SMTP id 5so3611196ywl.19 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:33:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=DrYtZ3pPQTxXg2AQywKxY5N1OBJeOABb/l/q71TER4Q=; b=jBgHXorsm8Y9W6hPP9PmGoGJNmoayIUw7IyDg1V2FumfovmSWKaCTitdVch5KsrSoK wa8o0Ky4RFxNnockbbWA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=YXtf9ku2c6NF3k7oYR6Cwt7e9Q5w5IzREuMMRzXES+fXChoh+cSf6CfnCGupxjeJ2O xE087JniBDnRKunyl+gA==
Received: by 10.151.158.12 with SMTP id k12mr15211406ybo.377.1291228431084; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:33:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.217.12 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:33:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimydOwRiVkrZn0zmxmvWP_V6yAmNbipOF73NBWD@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin6=8_Bhn2YseoSHGh1OSkQzsYrTW=fMiPvYps1@mail.gmail.com> <20101126000352.ad396b9a.eric@bisonsystems.net> <AANLkTimzQyG4hugOvHqoNrBrZFA4fGbGXQ7MZ2i+68dO@mail.gmail.com> <4CF615B2.9010304@rowe-clan.net> <F96E5CE9-CA7D-4B70-8260-F05456D021FB@gbiv.com> <AANLkTimi5HL56PD9gLHUWs=mcbV3Eaz=GOsK38sxPevb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimydOwRiVkrZn0zmxmvWP_V6yAmNbipOF73NBWD@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:33:30 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTin_k_s7yOSP1QUXyy66p=gweeepySFG+C=kGYJ+@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00151750dd42f56b9004965d8b5a"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade
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: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:32:41 -0000

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:

> On 1 December 2010 19:01, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> wrote:
> > That seems like a matter of perspective.  When opening a connection to
> > a WebSocket server, can one not view the server as a proxy sever?
>
>
> If Websocket was allocated it's own dedicated port (say 6543 for example),
> then opening a connection to some.host.com:80 and sending
>
>  CONNECT some.host.com:6543 HTTP/1.1
>
> would definitely be like a proxy server (and it could even be
> implemented that way, although I expect many servers would optimise
> out the trombone).
>
>
> But I'm not sure that
>
>  CONNECT some.special.token HTTP/1.1
>
> could be consider a proxy or in the spirit of the HTTP spec.
>

I think the concerns about how this interpreted should only be about
intermediaries -- the endpoints know that the connection could be a
WebSocket connection and can process it accordingly.  However, the
intermediaries cannot be relied on to recognize this, so the question
becomes which method of sending the WebSocket connection through HTTP
intermediaries is least likely to confuse them and most likely to transit
unharmed?

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email