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

Joel Martin <> Sat, 03 September 2011 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0AC21F874B; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y0DFy4PvSp73; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D706C21F8532; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so2826501fxe.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 03 Sep 2011 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=bOvSxsiqKOxGyi4BC/HgWJu5lSx1oFXvPTEamqQQ4iE=; b=JYZoq+5LQkOH4eIljSMhvnTQengwdTg6L1YWsq5zLkXFvdkWMFEpLi/U5QVCJnfmvZ QG7xbBb8JU0AKW9JodAENsIPnwjKSZTnuwoPYA1YeXBIaW1NgYLi+ClANkkeL/nMhP6H +jkPHpajXqrnrCt5tPi6RvwhEr13oSU3Iqjr4=
Received: by with SMTP id q3mr368221faa.71.1315091264081; Sat, 03 Sep 2011 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 16:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Joel Martin <>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 18:07:24 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ebcUtqHaw_hVXUYtWH8ViiKXLWI
Message-ID: <>
To: Willy Tarreau <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151743f846a490bd04ac118bb1
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <>, Server-Initiated HTTP <>,,
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 23:06:06 -0000

On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Willy Tarreau <> wrote:
>   The WebSocket protocol is designed to supersede existing bidirectional
>   communication protocols which use HTTP as a transport layer to benefit
>   from existing infrastructure (proxies, filtering, authentication). Such
>   existing protocols were implemented as trade-offs between efficiency and
>   reliability because HTTP was not initially meant to be used that way.
>   WebSocket tries to address all of these goals in the same environment,
>   and as such is designed to work over ports 80 and 443 as well as to
>   support HTTP proxies and intermediaries, even if this implies some
>   complexity specific to these environments. The way it is designed
>   does not limit it to HTTP and future implementations may make use of
>   simpler handshake over a dedicated port without revinventing everything.
>   This last point is important to keep in mind because the traffic patterns
>   of interactive messaging does not much match standard HTTP traffic and
>   may induce unusual loads on some components.

+1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty
well and also indicates to admins that they may see a change in observed
traffic patterns (in a neutral way).

Joel Martin