Re: [hybi] OPTIONS (was Re: It's time to ship)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 09 January 2011 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 89D6A3A6859 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:37:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.843, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gAKEfv2Dg9BT for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:37:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 284103A6853 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Jan 2011 23:39:36 -0000
Received: from p508FD146.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.209.70] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 10 Jan 2011 00:39:36 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+N6Dkgd6KNCNbTwpOSuIgIJZo+g4fucfCZv65QkJ Rwj9K+sN0DSfXp
Message-ID: <4D2A4738.2000500@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:39:36 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <AANLkTim2VGfH2FiJ4iH85wYiuXNKQ1Arh1C1Kg4M58Fs@mail.gmail.com> <20110109224228.GU5743@1wt.eu> <AANLkTimE-qOhYXO35nBqRWp9ipF-pk_CsO-YrotAjYqX@mail.gmail.com> <20110109230229.GX5743@1wt.eu> <0311EE7A-4A32-4885-BC87-1541AA70A18B@apple.com> <AANLkTinMo8xqhkB08bY8no1y5-7+7isCm97or6icH=r5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinMo8xqhkB08bY8no1y5-7+7isCm97or6icH=r5@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] OPTIONS (was Re: It's time to ship)
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: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:37:28 -0000

On 10.01.2011 00:09, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...
> Whether we use OPTIONS or GET is much less than 1% of the value
> proposition of the WebSockets protocol.  Rather than optimizing that
> part of the protocol, it's more important to pick something and go
> with it.
>
> Honestly, I picked OPTIONS because it was the example given in
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2817.txt.
> ...

OPTIONS isn't special with respect to Upgrade. (*)

My understanding is that the authors picked this example in order to 
avoid to let the server ignore the Upgrade request in GET, and then 
return the contents over an non-secured channel.

Unless there's a specific reason why people think OPTIONS is better than 
GET here, we should stick with what was discussed before.

Best regards, Julian

(*) I may be wrong, in which case we should clarify this in HTTPbis.