Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Sun, 19 June 2011 15:14 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 23A9111E80B0 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, 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 fV7SCDxQ6y6h for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B5011E8070 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so1266735qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.7.212 with SMTP id e20mr3218902qce.192.1308496465808; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.181.209 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimduZjX6YG+X23yOvwxk5CwWW6=uRexcPjhHEUkLkwu2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimduZjX6YG+X23yOvwxk5CwWW6=uRexcPjhHEUkLkwu2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:14:25 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=ajW-bkr7OuXWhU12qSHs7m4hFzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Dan Adkins <dadkins@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Sec-WebSocket-Protocl
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: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:14:27 -0000

2011/6/17 Dan Adkins <dadkins@google.com>om>:
> So, we know what the server MUST do if the server supports multiple
> subprotocols.  But what if the client didn't include that field?  Is
> the server free to respond with the protocol of its choice?  That
> seems strange that the server would be allowed to say to the client,
> "we're speaking this protocol, like it or not," as the client has no
> opportunity to respond.
>
> Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it does seem like there's a
> bit of a hole in the spec as I can't find the answer to my original
> question: if the client doesn't specify a subprotocol, can the server
> dictate one?

I agree. And I expect that subprotocol field will have not to much
real usage. Instead, a webdeveloper will make JavaScript to open a WS
connection with his server and start speaking the subprotocol even
without negociating it (as both the client side and server side will
be coded by same provider). It will be much like the web world, in
which each page is an independent world.



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