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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Sun, 24 July 2011 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CE921F8B0E; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.665
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2t9zKVoePoxF; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F0021F8B0A; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so2677710qwc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id y36mr2569452qce.227.1311507746491; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <> <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:42:26 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <>, IETF-Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:42:27 -0000

2011/7/23 Roy T. Fielding <>om>:
>> Right. If WS borns with no SRV (as a MUST for WS clients) then just
>> forget it and let inherit all the ugly limitations from HTTP protocol.
> I am tired of this.  SRV is not used for HTTP because SRV adds latency
> to the initial request for no useful purpose whatsoever.

And I'm really tired of hearing the argument of the "latency" which
nobody demostrates (but just talks about it without replying me how
the same is not a problem in realtime protocols like SIP and XMPP).

> SRV records for
> XMPP and MX records for mail are useful because there is only one such
> server expected per domain

$ host -t srv has SRV record 5 0 5269 has SRV record 20 0 5269 has SRV record 20 0 5269 has SRV record 20 0 5269 has SRV record 20 0 5269

No comments.

> and it is *very* desirable to maintain central
> control over that routing.

I don't know what this means.

> In contrast, HTTP is deployed in an anarchic
> manner in which there are often several HTTP servers per machine
> (e.g., tests, staging, production, CUPS, etc,).

Could you explain me why DNS A is good but DNS SRV is bad in such
"anarchic" deployments?

>  AFAICT, WebSockets is
> even more anarchic than HTTP -- it will have to be, given that the sane
> network admins will block it by default.

   It is up to the system administrator whether to set, or not, DNS SRV
   resource records for the WebSocket protocol within the provided
   service.  This specification allows the system administrator to use
   the DNS SRV [RFC2782] mechanism to improve the service reliability by
   providing load-balancing and failover capabilities, but does not
   mandate it (the system administrator could choose whichever
   scalability strategy).

> In short, SRV is not used by the Web because it is inappropriate for HTTP.
> I have seen no reason to believe that it would be appropriate for WebSockets.
> If you want SRV to be part of the proposed standard, then you have to convince
> the people implementing WS to use SRV.  None have done so, yet, so we can't
> expect the editor to add it to the spec just because you have an opinion.

Ok, so the argument "I don't know SRV but I feel fine with HTTP
limitations for years" will win. Great design decissions.


Iñaki Baz Castillo