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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Thu, 21 July 2011 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 422B021F86B6; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.67
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, 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 PG1IJL4HqNDr; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3A921F86AF; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so4597111qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id e38mr748859qck.151.1311290535964; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:22:15 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
To: Bruce Atherton <>
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:22:17 -0000

2011/7/22 Bruce Atherton <>om>:
> You are right that it would be impossible to require all environments that
> wanted to add Websockets support, whether client or server, to change their
> DNS to have NAPTR and SRV records. After all, Websockets is intended to
> integrate easily into the already existing HTTP infrastructure.
> What is being proposed, though, is to require clients to resolve the
> hostname portion of ws: and wss: URLs by _first_ looking for NAPTR and SRV
> records (unless, of course, the hostname is already an IP address). If a
> NAPTR record is found, use it to look up an SRV record (otherwise use a
> default). If an SRV record is found, use it to look up the A or AAAA record.
> If no SRV record is found, look up the record exactly the same as if you
> were looking up an HTTP host, by using the host name from the URL.

Well, in SIP there are NAPTR records because SIP can work over
different transports (UDP, TCP, TLS-TCP. SCTP, TLS-SCTP). In case of
WebSocket, it just defined for TCP so NAPTR records don't make sense.

So just SRV is required:

a)  _ws._tcp.DOMAIN.COM    for WS URI
b)  _wss._tcp.DOMAIN.COM   for WSS URI


Iñaki Baz Castillo