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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Wed, 27 July 2011 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3A321F8BD4; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.646
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZideCnpXNrcZ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76BC121F8BC3; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so936158qwc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id mq6mr4994651qcb.291.1311759838852; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <9031.1311286867.939466@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311538720.416128@puncture> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:43:58 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: Willy Tarreau <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 09:44:00 -0000

2011/7/26 Willy Tarreau <>eu>:
> if you want to have any chance of making SRV *usable* with WS (or
> HTTP), you have to motivate both sides by showing them that :
>  - it's better for them to use it than not to use it (both servers and
>    browsers)
>  - the additional cost of using it is negligible
>  - there are no issues with not using it

These are godd points, but I never wanted to propose SRV for HTTP as I
consider it's just unfeasible at this time (take into account the
ammount of HTTP clients in the world, as browsers, libraries in any
language and so on).

>  - leaving the choices to the intermediaries will not cause disruptions

This last point is hard to accomplish (I'm just talking about SRV for
WS, not for HTTP) because HTTP proxies should be capable of
determining that a GET request is in fact a WS handshake, and *just*
in that case perform SRV procedures over the domain (assuming that
there won't be SRV in the old, anti-fashion and technologically
limited HTTP world).

> I'm pretty sure that can be done, but clearly not the way it's been
> presented till now.

If the requeriment for including SRV in WS is also including it in
HTTP then I surrender. I don't think it will never happen, neither I'm
an expert in HTTP for such kind of proposal.

Thanks a lot.

Iñaki Baz Castillo