Re: [hybi] Straw poll: Do you miss interjectable WebSocket level control frame? (was: Re: Discontinuation of mux ...)

[Takeshi Yoshino <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Ian Hickson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Takeshi Yoshino wrote:
> >
> > I think it's underspecified. In the WHATWG WebSocket API spec, close()
> > is required to "start the WebSocket closing handshake". RFC 6455 neither
> > says the algorithm may terminate ongoing "Send a WebSocket Message"
> > algorithm nor says it may not.
>
> If it doesn't allow it, then it's not allowed.
>

Yeah, it's kinda twist.

But also it's not strange that people wonder if close frame interjection
like this is ok or not. Actually, even ping/pong sending are not explicitly
allowed to be inserted between "Send a WebSocket Message" algorithm.

The only normative text talking about interjection are this one in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-5.5
"Control frames can be interjected in the middle of a fragmented message."
and this in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-5.4
"Control frames (see Section 5.5) MAY be injected in the middle of a
fragmented message."


>
> If you send a bunch of messages, then start the closing handshake, then
> the messages should all be sent. I don't think there's anything in either
> spec that would allow the handshake to jump ahead.
>

It would be nice if you add some note to the API spec to say "queuing"
doesn't have any implication that the closing handshake can jump in in
response to Zhong's question above.