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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Thu, 21 July 2011 22:21 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 94AC821F8589; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 HBTpaYmZMi8R; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:21:29 -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 6BD6521F8581; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4530A1168087; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:21:11 +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 xCXy2b3rXpa3; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:21:08 +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 EE3041168067; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:21:07 +0100 (BST)
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <CALiegfk_GLAhAf=yEe6hYw2bwtxEwg9aJN+f0Bm9he5QgsRavA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=Ft6NwG+rbcuWUP0npwVNHY_znHmXmznBQO_krMo3RT6g@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmTWMP3GhS1-k2aoHHXkUkB+eWqV=2+BufuWVR1s2Z-EA@mail.gmail.com> <20110721163910.GA16854@1wt.eu> <CAP992=FrX5VxP2o0JLNoJs8nXXba7wbZ6RN9wBUYC0ZSN_wbAg@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <CALiegf=pYzybvc7WB2QfPg6FKrhLxgzHuP-DpuuMfZYJV6Z7FQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=FJymFPKcPVWrF-LkcEtNUz=Kt9L_ex+kLtjiGjL1T46w@mail.gmail.com> <4E28A51F.4020704@callenish.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E28A51F.4020704@callenish.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <9031.1311286867.939466@puncture>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:21:07 +0100
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com>, Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:21:29 -0000

On Thu Jul 21 23:15:59 2011, Bruce Atherton wrote:
> So if you have no control over the DNS, it is not a problem. The  
> host will be resolved exactly the same way as it is now, using a  
> hosts file or A record or whatever. The only change is that the  
> client is required to try to use the more advanced mechanism if it  
> is available.
> 
> 
Right.


> I admit that I find it a little troubling to use MUST for the  
> client to follow this procedure as there is a burden on  
> implementers to understand how to code this since it isn't done by  
> default in the standard libraries the way that ordinary name  
> resolution is. Making it the recognized best practice with a SHOULD  
> would be preferable all else being equal.
> 
> 
SRV lookup is pretty commonplace now in libraries. XMPP and SIP  
clients have no difficulty finding this functionality in a wide  
variety of environments. For the web, where there are substantially  
fewer web browsers than there are XMPP clients, I don't think this  
would pose any kind of problem.


> It can be argued that not using a MUST may well open up  
> interoperability problems because some Websockets clients contact  
> the wrong host. However, keep in mind that in the older SIP RFC2543  
> it provided two resolution mechanisms. It specified that clients  
> SHOULD look up address records, but MAY use the DNS SRV mechanism.  
> SIP survived that without too much of a hassle. And specifying that  
> Websockets clients SHOULD use DNS SRV, but MAY use address records  
> alone looks like an improvement.
> 
> 
SIP survived because it was very small. I don't see WS making a  
transition, in the same way that repeated attempts have failed to  
move HTTP to SRV.

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