Re: [hybi] OPTIONS (was Re: It's time to ship)

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Sun, 09 January 2011 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 076CC3A6853 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:07:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.93
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.953, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 JwdYjvjcAEna for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:07:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199D93A6835 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:07:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so20374254qyj.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.36.202 with SMTP id u10mr16770444qad.316.1294614599633; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q12sm16962346qcu.6.2011.01.09.15.09.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:09:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so19940906iwn.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.12.132 with SMTP id x4mr3604117ibx.177.1294614596936; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:09:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.11.140 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:09:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0311EE7A-4A32-4885-BC87-1541AA70A18B@apple.com>
References: <AANLkTim2VGfH2FiJ4iH85wYiuXNKQ1Arh1C1Kg4M58Fs@mail.gmail.com> <20110109224228.GU5743@1wt.eu> <AANLkTimE-qOhYXO35nBqRWp9ipF-pk_CsO-YrotAjYqX@mail.gmail.com> <20110109230229.GX5743@1wt.eu> <0311EE7A-4A32-4885-BC87-1541AA70A18B@apple.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:09:26 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinMo8xqhkB08bY8no1y5-7+7isCm97or6icH=r5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] OPTIONS (was Re: It's time to ship)
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: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:07:49 -0000

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 02:49:10PM -0800, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 02:21:44PM -0800, Adam Barth wrote:
>
>
> At first glance, I'm noticing a few things :
>
>  - you're using the OPTIONS method. The WG's consensus was voted as using
>
>    GET. While technically working, OPTIONS limits some possibilities since
>
>    no path is sent to the server.
>
> Be that as it may.  OPTIONS is good enough.
>
> But on what basis are you trying to change what was adopted as a consensus ?
> I mean, I *know* that OPTIONS can evict more broken intermediaries than GET,
> but the participants here have been working on the GET hypothesis with its
> capabilities. Noone has had the opportunity to talk about their expectations
> and the implications such a change would have for them.
>
> Now seems like a fine time to discuss OPTIONS. What are the pros and cons?
> It seems to avoid the HTTP compliance issues that CONNECT had, at least.

Whether we use OPTIONS or GET is much less than 1% of the value
proposition of the WebSockets protocol.  Rather than optimizing that
part of the protocol, it's more important to pick something and go
with it.

Honestly, I picked OPTIONS because it was the example given in
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2817.txt.

Adam