IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] [whatwg] WebSockets: UDP

Scott Hess <shess@google.com> Tue, 01 June 2010 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <shess@google.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 4762B3A690D for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 2N-WzEBjsm-A for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7D228C0DB for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.80]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o51NY78T018596 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:34:07 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1275435247; bh=EFkufbqscFpa7e6ekDXOdUqIEQs=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=s/I6/p3q/GZRMdqw3O8mzi0tfJGtvq3hAMULoA50cmIPjzBPt+kOhj4hZKh0l5LlL /55FdlIb/kaskilBSqL3g==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=hCULSKWi4iufB8UsSBynaqWJwDV3ADg49pIXmu4R/5W5jev+Oq/6WMvyYZlU5PvDX CdLIduOBrguv/F4L4TbOQ==
Received: from pwi6 (pwi6.prod.google.com [10.241.219.6]) by kpbe16.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o51NY5RG009079 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:34:05 -0700
Received: by pwi6 with SMTP id 6so2444137pwi.28 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.90.17 with SMTP id s17mr5429425rvl.207.1275435245200; Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.210.21 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilAy-494wt5UebjRsdDkhTVS3LXp-toxRsuBs2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <op.vdl9bszhr4mipi@emoller-pc.gothenburg.osa> <AANLkTin8TYLeOdZmKbs6IqklsS5P24Qd4kqtTV_UXp-l@mail.gmail.com> <op.vdmg3ov6r4mipi@emoller-pc.gothenburg.osa> <AANLkTim2j9xbgW4fnKYy69uZ9KwBaDvs1ypu92pG1Hxo@mail.gmail.com> <op.vdm0lrqmr4mipi@emoller-pc.gothenburg.osa> <AANLkTilAy-494wt5UebjRsdDkhTVS3LXp-toxRsuBs2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 16:34:05 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinsp1rOYr4tLYpfgilqnelhRqQB9gUDHrUOxTrB@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Hess <shess@google.com>
To: Mark Frohnmayer <mark.frohnmayer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 22:26:09 -0700
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Philip Taylor <excors+whatwg@gmail.com>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [whatwg] WebSockets: UDP
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: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 02:55:42 -0000

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Mark Frohnmayer
<mark.frohnmayer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Erik Möller <emoller@opera.com> wrote:
>> So, what would the minimal set of limitations be to make a "UDP WebSocket"
>> browser-safe?
>>
>> -No listen sockets
>
> Only feedback here would be I think p2p should be looked at in this
> pass -- many client/server game instances are peers from the
> perspective of the hosting service (XBox Live, Quake, Half-Life,
> Battle.net) -- forcing all game traffic to pass through the hosting
> domain is a severe constraint.  My question -- what does a "webby" p2p
> solution look like regarding Origin restrictions, etc?

Unix domain sockets allow you to pass file descriptors between
processes.  It might be interesting to pass a WebSocket endpoint
across a WebSocket.  If the clients can punch through NATs, it becomes
a direct peer-to-peer connection, otherwise it gets proxied through
the server.  Probably makes implementations excessively complicated,
though.  UDP-style would be easier (no need to worry about data
received by the server after it initiates pushing the endpoint to the
other client - just drop it on the floor).

-scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email