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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Tue, 19 July 2011 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.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 8C0DE21F84E1; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 SeRUR6ACFNlg; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:2e0:81ff:fe29:d16a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE38921F86D1; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A8E1168087; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:26:48 +0100 (BST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net
Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MdZBQGoRYsD0; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:26:41 +0100 (BST)
Received: from puncture (puncture.dave.cridland.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:882:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A05FC1168067; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:26:41 +0100 (BST)
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:26:41 +0100
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>, Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:26:54 -0000

On Tue Jul 19 12:51:16 2011, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/7/11 The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>rg>:
> > The IESG has received a request from the BiDirectional or
> > Server-Initiated HTTP WG (hybi) to consider the following  
> document:
> > - 'The WebSocket protocol'
> >  <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> as a Proposed  
> Standard
> 
> Hi, I assume there is no interest in making DNS SRV mechanism  
> exposed
> in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ibc-websocket-dns-srv-02 part of
> the WebSocket core specification, neither referencing it (in the  
> same
> way RFC 3261 "SIP protocol" mandates the usage of RFC 3263 "Locating
> SIP servers").
> 
> As said before, making such DNS SRV specification an extension (so
> present in other document) will mean no success at all, as WebSocket
> client implementors (i.e. webbrowser vendors) will not be mandated  
> to
> implement it and service providers could not rely on the support of
> DNS SRV in web browsers. So nobody will use them (because IE10  
> decided
> not to implement it, for example). IMHO this is sad due the real
> advantages DNS SRV provides for a protocol like WebSocket.
> 
> Yes, in HTTP there is no special DNS stuff, all the load-balancing  
> and
> failover mechanism are done at server side with very complex and
> expensive solutions (www.facebook.com resolves to a single IPv4  
> !!!!).
> The question is: should we also inherit every HTTP limitation in
> WebSocket?

I agree wholeheartedly with this, and strongly recommend that  
mandatory use of SRV is included in the core protocol.

I think with HTTP's very short lived requests, then it's possible to  
work around the lack of SRV support (at a cost), but the benefit is  
markedly higher with the long-lived, stateful sessions we're  
anticipating with WebSocket.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade