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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Sun, 24 July 2011 19:21 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 968B721F887C; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, 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 pV-jAwT2zpek; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE0721F8877; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so2793864qwc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.44.36 with SMTP id y36mr2793815qce.227.1311535291790; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.185.195 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110724191641.GC22405@1wt.eu>
References: <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> <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4@gbiv.com> <CALiegfkshhJVUHzTD1Kka5+RjGwZ5CS2J=Qk92jfSBg6Z0VfOQ@mail.gmail.com> <C9CD680E-8D68-4380-A76F-70F41F30F877@gbiv.com> <CALiegfkFnKjP09Vijo3c_DFYn4=UZm9M-4mVuZUyBk8rzwmDCw@mail.gmail.com> <20110724191641.GC22405@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:21:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmxKf+UpFd-gV5SrYwgkJHhYLEYTZCNa0KzLDAb+pqixA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:21:33 -0000

2011/7/24 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>eu>:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:52:32PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> Ok. But I don't see the problem. What about Google Apps? My own domain
>> uses Gtalk and Gmail by setting Google XMPP SRV and MX records. Now
>> imagine that I would host my personal webpage (domain "www.aliax.net")
>> in Google, wouldn't be great a SRV entry for HTTP
>> (_http._tcp.aliax.net has SRV record 10 0 80
>> web-server-01.google.com)? or do we prefer the ugly HTTP 30X
>> redirection or ugly CNAME?
>
> Well, you gave the perfect example : here, CNAME is the exact equivalent
> of SRV. None is cheaper nor better than the other. You just find it ugly
> because it's called CNAME.

Well... paying the same price (an extra DNS query) SRV offers you
balancing and failover capabilities, while CNAME is just an alias for
a DNS A resolution (like a soft link).





>> The fact that people is "confortable" enough with HTTP style-of-life
>> (a specification of 1999) and does not want to deal with "new
>> technologies" other than stuff and more stuff on top of HTTP, is not a
>> good argument for me.
>
> It's not a matter of new vs old technologies. We're not trying to
> paint HTTP in a shiny color to impress friends. We're dealing with
> deployed setups and users with high expectations, which are currently
> more or less met and for which your proposal doesn't sensibly improve
> experience but can sensibly degrade it for many people.

Anyhow I've never proposed SRV for HTTP, but just for WebSocket :)



>> HTTP is not the layer number 5 in OSI model.
>
> Like it or not, it has inherited this role a long time ago because it
> provides many advantages over plain TCP (such as easy reconnection,
> authentication, etc...).

You are right, I don't like it :)


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