Re: [hybi] Redesigning the Web Socket handshake

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Fri, 05 February 2010 08:23 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.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 CA3F73A6898 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:23:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 DiJYj+QzUkj9 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:23:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2893A6838 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 00:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o158Nud9009060; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 02:24:14 -0600
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:23:57 +0200
Received: from mgw-sa01.ext.nokia.com ([147.243.1.47]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:23:58 +0200
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa01.ext.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o158Nsvw006763 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:23:54 +0200
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at fit.nokia.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-36--711780708"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B6A98EE.9090006@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:23:47 +0200
Message-Id: <A82FE113-B675-424A-9B35-737A7CB1A5BA@nokia.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002012305000.21600@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4B6A98EE.9090006@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.fit.nokia.com [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:23:48 +0200 (EET)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2010 08:23:58.0222 (UTC) FILETIME=[9045C2E0:01CAA63C]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Redesigning the Web Socket 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: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:23:28 -0000

Hi,

On 2010-2-4, at 11:52, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2010/02/02 8:47, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
>> * Using ports 81/815 instead of 80/443 would be ideal, but IANA said that
>>   if we look like HTTP, we must use ports 80/443.

I'm trying to find out from IANA if this is really what the IANA Expert Reviewer said. There might have been a misunderstanding here.

> Well, the port space is pretty crowded these days. But IANA is not going 
> to tell the *IETF* that they need the same ports as another protocol in 
> case the IETF decides that it needs different ports. IANA's job 
> description, for the protocol registries, is essentially: Register 
> everything the IETF tells you, the way they tell you.

IANA assumes that requests coming through the IETF have been more carefully vetted than port requests that arrive from elsewhere, so there is no Expert Review for those, because the IETF process should have eliminated/corrected nonsensical requests before they hit IANA.

> So for the moment, please assume that if we (as an IETF WG, followed by 
> IETF last call) decide that we need new ports, IANA will try their best 
> to give us new ports. The exact number may be treated as a detail.

Yes.

Lars