IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@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 554763A6B42 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 usHOZaTscOhH for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A70D3A69C8 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o8OEIIZD007589 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:18:18 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1285337899; bh=tXZgue/9EMbbUBWYIiN+RyE3sFY=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=bnMzHbmrdQ9oeVJ4TGsH7N4KxgFwMJ+b7OSLB74FbSSD1raMWJB582VaCT+roPnud xV5tLoycd6nGVWOfnRzYA==
Received: from gxk23 (gxk23.prod.google.com [10.202.11.23]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o8OEHwwv015300 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:18:17 -0700
Received: by gxk23 with SMTP id 23so1306905gxk.37 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MIsk0FmElP/i58XpuEkl+sumyR14nlJReI/rH69vO5U=; b=c2u4gFYvPRYZXrAEqwMf+NQzUnk/P2A5x+OgslKAr3D1pO3/wBZJ+DXtiijHzy29qF 0dXRMLncZk5bPJiFkVRA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jJYhHethlZlmATKdwEZ0TY8rCgbGE2dIC2v8iIrtTnSjpQk2u7Uta9u2OyZGjT0KTg 17+5L7re5gXQ4lrGe8VA==
Received: by 10.150.50.15 with SMTP id x15mr4831103ybx.35.1285337896526; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.113.8 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=_TYM1vZrZYBoSu+8j9WrSXfaZ42EMRmnF3rnz@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikszM0pVE-0dpZ2kv=i=y5yzS2ekeyZxtz9N=fQ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikczXMx9XSY4jGaVwh5LndRTTLg==+LPj=JmiGk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=_TYM1vZrZYBoSu+8j9WrSXfaZ42EMRmnF3rnz@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:17:56 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=gqCD=ymNawDYnpRommm2CesrBFqC-eDCpuFvG@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexander Voronin <alexander.voronin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.
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: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:17:51 -0000

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Alexander Voronin
<alexander.voronin@gmail.com> wrote:
> To my mind is enough to send 101 or 501 if websocket is not implemented on
> server or intermediary. You are making things too complicated and implicit.

The intermediaries we are concerned about have already been written.
If they were going to be modified to send a 501 back for a WebSocket
connection,  they might as well just be modified to support
WebSockets.

So, we want to let existing intermediaries that would currently work
without change keep working (which means remaining HTTP compliant
until the server response comes back), and hopefully detect those that
fail quickly without requiring timeouts.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email