Re: [hybi] Clarify the role of closing handshake

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Tue, 15 February 2011 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <tyoshino@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 9E51B3A6DC9 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 svNdYluYoWLD for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53A43A6C43 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p1FMjwEx031278 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:58 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1297809958; bh=JMZolSOY5nUia0joSRtG5hwmh2k=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=WL8UHQQE7w2670qdwkDEMC7S7GpjDIP8e3BlhkPQgAQl9DZjL7gT/d0sgWw8JdVr+ l+HAoep1mX5uE2J5DuEsw==
Received: from iyj8 (iyj8.prod.google.com [10.241.51.72]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p1FMjpqn021730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:57 -0800
Received: by iyj8 with SMTP id 8so612633iyj.33 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=dlzSwLQ62B6SQjxWJPlRnt6XoPdWgetZFM07UfwOYKE=; b=oL4mAVHKCWV/XTaSyWnNcACmjNn/zafhDt+9pcHdglu1gIDua0BgBuF8VATugOuatS vwJM1FIMSyMwktT0A3Gw==
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; b=wcbFX9tD8rLQOMFVM9t9c2Rb0E71uGPo1RyJ/GpWnBuZoiYJ0ax8HCZUlN9KTec+JA 6cgqxgaTbiHQdSoFx6RA==
Received: by 10.42.164.138 with SMTP id g10mr7396272icy.389.1297809956746; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.17.201 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <OF9E69202E.36384265-ON88257838.00749E83-88257838.007782CA@playstation.sony.com>
References: <4D5AE318.9080308@stpeter.im> <OF9E69202E.36384265-ON88257838.00749E83-88257838.007782CA@playstation.sony.com>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:45:36 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+5mxtbD4GbNK1X2P3CEyLQngOB06qj9sN-Gjh@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yutaka_Takeda@playstation.sony.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba6e8c9675358d049c59ed1d"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Clarify the role of closing handshake
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: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:45:36 -0000

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 13:45, <Yutaka_Takeda@playstation.sony.com> wrote:

>
> Okay, I admit my example was bad.
>
> Just to be clear, even with this code:
>
>       websocket.send("a-message-needs-to-reach-server")
>       websocket.close()
>
> From your opinions, programmers should not expect that the message always
> reach the server. (granted)
>
>
Yes, this point should be noted in the spec, or developers may
misunderstand.


> Now, here's another question for you.
>
> If onclose() callback is made on the websocket, would it be helpful if that
> callback (with wasClean=true) guarantees
> that the message has been delivered to the server?
>
>
Just to be sure, again I'd like to note that ... the complex algorithm in
-05 realizes this (wasClean=true iff received Close frame with "C"), but any
of the proposal A-1, A-2, B I wrote don't. What A-2 and B can do is just
avoiding RST hazard case.


> # trying to figure out whether graceful shutdown at least during 'closing'
> state would ever be helpful.
>
>
I personally think since an application can have its own ack to take care of
this, we don't have to have this feature as mandatory in WebSocket.


> Thanks,
> - Yutaka
>
>
> hybi-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 02/15/2011 12:33:28 PM:
>
>
> > On 2/15/11 1:30 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > > If you need, with websocket, to detect that the user's gone
> > > away (such as for an IM system to show that they're offline), you can
> > > do that on the server when you detect the connection is closed.  If
> > > you're using xhr-polling or similar, a reasonably short timeout on the
> > > server during which the user doesn't reconnect for more data should
> > > suffice as a suitable "user has gone away" event.
> >
> > Agreed. And this is what we do in IM systems like XMPP (whether using
> > the TCP binding or BOSH).
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > --
> > Peter Saint-Andre
> > https://stpeter.im/
> >
> >
> >
> > [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Yutaka Takeda/R&D/SCEA]
> > _______________________________________________
> > hybi mailing list
> > hybi@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>