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

Willy Tarreau <> Wed, 27 July 2011 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC3621F86C3; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.186
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.443, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1Tm9iQy0g9f; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD2F21F86C2; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p6RE32Ou007260; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:03:02 +0200
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:03:02 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki?= Baz Castillo <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <9031.1311538720.416128@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/
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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:03:08 -0000

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:45:38PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/7/27 Willy Tarreau <>eu>:
> > Once again, the goal to make SRV adopted BY USERS is not to ensure that
> > it tries to cover all the server-side needs, but that it offers better
> > quality of service to USERS. That way USERS will massively adopt it and
> > server will one day be able to safely rely on it. Just like neither
> > Javascript nor cookies nor flash are mandatory, still all of them are
> > very common in practice and many service providers happily rely on them.
> Thanks for your useful comments (as always in these threads). Let me
> just a question:
> What do you mean with "USERS"? Do you mean home users in front of
> their web browsers? or webbrowser vendors?

Users in front of web browsers.

> I don't think home users (neither professional users) has nothing to
> decide here, they will not "resolve" the WS URI retrieved from a
> webpage.

I think you're wrong. Those are these users which ask for feature XXX or
YYY that they like because it brings them a better experience. If you can
find a real benefit for the end user, there will be an option in the browser
and some of them will enable it. It's just important to find how an end user
may benefit from making use of SRV tags when connecting to his favorite site
instead of using just CNAME or A/AAAA. Maybe being able to always connect to
less loaded servers would be appreciated, because some site maintainers will
start announcing new servers. Maybe there are solutions to provide better
geolocation using SRV than with A (ie: let the web browser decide which field
to use instead of relying on its resolver's IP address). Maybe it will be
possible for mobile users to automatically select a different port which is
not subject to annoying transparent proxies at their provider. I don't know.
You must think in terms of better experience which might be brought via
better quality of service. Surely a DNS record might provide information to
improve QoS based on the browser's decision.

> So we are talking about webbrowser vendors, right? and typically there
> are no more than.... 10?

Browsers implement what their users ask for. They don't want to add features
that are not desired and make experience worse or reduce reliability. But if
users ask for something, they'll certainly implement it.