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

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Sun, 24 July 2011 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89F321F8A69; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JDN9rl66bT9G; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2949721F8A64; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2182594059; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gbiv.com; h=subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=gbiv.com; b=fYBJ32s0aEK4JoPp Vmdj4nSQaFQaOZP16PV+ZaSmRhaai0BepLmSL2wX2VUP8Onn2W/cfatA5ZKcCdhj C7mHS5BiMJ+EjLfy9nggp0axEoQ02IGjDgURkq+UzpAr6kvjQChehY0NslQoy7pD YFpJ6vJG3ra1v9N+ztLjv0ywIBs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=Zhc5xVe4U1bC3Z/Eyfw/o3c2gZo=; b=Wtq9KxL3FMeKMy+h6pwVhJjKpOwt hOPRl5ySdNpqE31snE60AG1iwLU4CFu/nMQaLT5QHdKbZf0icys19EooupkReX7j gC+vcSzVuXZWFuWla5XjDEPY/lizGQS/mr0B6WQkBhSLODpvMIa7vEYbvTP5R6Ls uP7OAcj4eSUAXa8=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B62EC594058; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110724073323.EEAAF121E985@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:19:06 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6B997439-029D-4290-9A4A-308B6D1EA174@gbiv.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <CALiegfk_GLAhAf=yEe6hYw2bwtxEwg9aJN+f0Bm9he5QgsRavA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=Ft6NwG+rbcuWUP0npwVNHY_znHmXmznBQO_krMo3RT6g@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmTWMP3GhS1-k2aoHHXkUkB+eWqV=2+BufuWVR1s2Z-EA@mail.gmail.com> <20110721163910.GA16854@1wt.eu> <CAP992=FrX5VxP2o0JLNoJs8nXXba7wbZ6RN9wBUYC0ZSN_wbAg@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <CALiegf=pYzybvc7WB2QfPg6FKrhLxgzHuP-DpuuMfZYJV6Z7FQ@mail.gmail.com> <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4@gbiv.com> <20110724073323.EEAAF121E985@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 24 Jul 2011 18:19:08 -0000

On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:33 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <B2C17B21-EA8A-4698-8C41-F55A9AA140D4@gbiv.com>om>, "Roy T. Fielding" writes:
>> On Jul 21, 2011, at 10:52 AM, I=F1aki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> 
>>> 2011/7/21 Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>et>:
>>>> It's proven impossible, despite effort, to retrofit SRV onto HTTP; there=
>> is
>>>> no way it'll be possible to retrofit onto WS.
>>> =
>> 
>>> Right. If WS borns with no SRV (as a MUST for WS clients) then just
>>> forget it and let inherit all the ugly limitations from HTTP protocol.
>> 
>> I am tired of this.  SRV is not used for HTTP because SRV adds latency
>> to the initial request for no useful purpose whatsoever.
> 
> How do you solve the problem of hosting just "http://example.com/"
> on "s1.joes-web-service.com" and not redirect everything else at
> example.com?  People have been complaining about this for about as
> long as the web has existed.

The Web has existed in usable form since 1991.  Name-based virtual
hosting wasn't even possible until we added Host in 1995.  In any case,
nobody has ever asked me to make the above a priority -- it simply isn't
a relevant problem compared to load balancing in general, and the general
problem does not assume that the client is friendly.

I would never try to "solve" load balancing by requiring every browser
to make an additional (failed) DNS SRV request each time it encounters
one of the 357,292,065 individual hostnames that are known to use HTTP,
not to mention the many millions more that are not exposed on the
Internet and don't even use DNS for resolution.  HTTP would not, cannot,
and never will benefit from SRV even if we had a magic wand that could
deploy it on all browsers.  SRV simply doesn't fit the Web architecture.

....Roy