Re: [hybi] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-01.txt

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

+Alexey

That interpretation doesn't seem consistent with RFC-6455, section 4.1
> regarding absolute form (copied below).
>
> *The "Request-URI" part of the request MUST match the /resource*
> *        name/ defined in Section 3 (a relative URI) or be an absolute*
> *        http/https URI that, when parsed, has a /resource name/, /host/,*
> *        and /port/ that match the corresponding ws/wss URI.*
>

That's really interesting and is the only argument I find at all
compelling.Thanks.  Basically its saying that the URI of the GET is not the
websockets URI used in other places such as the cache and the pac. Which is
totally insane imo.

Given that H1 doesn't ever let you send an absolute URI to an origin server
that's a total nop of a statement. I'm not feeling particularly bound by it
if it is just broken and not used. I'm not sure I'm even willing to put my
name on continuation of it :)

Maybe Alexey, as 6455 author, can weigh in on what the target-uri was meant
to be.. but none of this is changing my mind on what it needs to be. You're
connecting to a wss:// target; the scheme is therefore wss://. That doesn't
mean it can't be carried on h2 or quic (if there were a definition) and it
doesn't mean its scheme changes when it is.

(as for redirects, yes the redirect needs to be to wss.. otherwise the
client should fail the connection as non ws[s] uris are not legal for
websocket clients.. as for the same server getting a mixture of schemes
that's something h2 is meant to support.. that's why the scheme is
explicit.).


>
>