Re: [hybi] comments on draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-00

Willy Tarreau <> Tue, 13 July 2010 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE403A685F for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.026
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.283, 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 9PE0rUmCkQdr for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038BB3A67EF for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o6DBYsHc016710; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:34:54 +0200
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:34:54 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <>
To: Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=2E_D=FCrst?= <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <op.vfj9vfna64w2qv@annevk-t60> <> <op.vfl5hj0864w2qv@annevk-t60> <> <op.vfp6jk0h64w2qv@annevk-t60> <>
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/
Subject: Re: [hybi] comments on draft-ietf-hybi-websocket-requirements-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:34:48 -0000

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 07:44:39PM +0900, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2010/07/12 19:10, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >Not to me. The main reason we are discussing what "HTTP compatible"
> >means and how the "HTTP handshake" ought to look is because someone at
> >IANA thought WebSocket should share a port with HTTP. It has nothing
> >much to do with the charter. And frankly, it seems like things might be
> >much easier if we did not share a port with HTTP.
> I agree. Ports, especially those below 1024, are scare, so it's quite 
> understandable that IANA was reluctant to allocate a new port number for 
> an individual or a third-party organization. But we are an IETF WG. If 
> we decide that we better use a separate port for websockets, we just say 
> so in the spec, and some time between now and when the spec is published 
> as an RFC, IANA will tell us what port number we get. For details, 
> please see
> There are some good reasons to reuse the http ports, but there are also 
> some good reasons to not do so.

In my opinion we should distinguish the *need* for reusing HTTP ports from
the need to use a separate ports. Those are two distinct things. The reuse
of the HTTP port is for the port, but not only, it's also for everything
belonging to HTTP (URL switching, virtual hosting, etc...). For this reason
it seems urgent to define the protocol as if the port was dedicated to it,
and then define how it can be upgraded from standard HTTP.