Re: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback?

["Alakkad, Achuth (GE Healthcare)" <[e-mail]>]

To me the main advantage of websocket is that, it makes use of exisiting
accepted port (80). Thus not affecting any intermediatory devices, such
as firewal configuration. If we are going to go with an independent port
for websockets, then will it start of a monotonous rework for those
devices ( like firewall, proxy etc..).


________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Greg Wilkins
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:19 AM
To: Hybi
Subject: [hybi] WS port with BOSH-like fallback?



So tell me again why we don't just ask IANA for a websocket port?

Browsers can try to port and if it fails to connect they can fall back
to something like BOSH over port 80.
This get's us through firewalls and keep port 80 for HTTP.

I think that is the right technical solution (use ports for what ports
were designed for) and avoids the growing conflict over usage of port
80.

cheers