Re: [hybi] Addressing Minimal Events

Frank Salim <frank.salim@kaazing.com> Thu, 16 April 2009 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <frank.salim@kaazing.com>
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 97F3D3A6C92 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 GpZYbA3XiQSB for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71F73A6B69 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so770172yxm.49 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.49.8 with SMTP id w8mr2001076agw.117.1239907490423; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <49E6DC0E.2070809@webtide.com>
References: <49DEF171.4080506@mozilla.com> <170C0E82-633A-4CA9-B26E-38015BFC7C0D@lindenlab.com> <49E3C476.7090005@webtide.com> <20090414191717.GI32311@shareable.org> <b7197f6c0904141933o14c2cc53qf687458d3f68745e@mail.gmail.com> <49E5AA86.9040100@webtide.com> <79ea848f0904150942h6038bf3bs9fc867b918c87a36@mail.gmail.com> <49E66DDD.8030201@webtide.com> <b7197f6c0904151753ne354d8cl62d0e66501e3b80f@mail.gmail.com> <49E6DC0E.2070809@webtide.com>
From: Frank Salim <frank.salim@kaazing.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:44:35 -0700
Message-ID: <b7197f6c0904161144m447049d6t1599943a7c552c54@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Addressing Minimal Events
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: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:43:38 -0000

There are different reasons for imposing a limit on the number of HTTP
connections. A page with 100 images might innocently cause 100 HTTP
connections to open simultaneously. A malicious page might
intentionally do the same with embedded content.

In the case of malicious cross-origin connections, a WebSocket server
should have all the information it needs to close them quickly.

As far as client-side congestion goes, we leave it up to authors to
police themselves regarding their CPU usage and memory consumption.
Badly behaved sites get complaints and drive away their users. I see
this the same way.

-Frank

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
> Frank Salim wrote:
>>>
>>> Connections are a real problem and I believe that the Websocket
>>> API will encourage the usage of more sockets.
>>
>> WebSockets are not subject to the browsers' restrictions on the number
>> of HTTP connections. I don't think this is a problem.
>
> Frank,
>
> Avoiding the limit doesn't avoid the good reasons the limit was put there
> in the first place.
>
> regards
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>