Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

[Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]>]

Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Jamie,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:38:34AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:22:11AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
> > > > I believe Mike quoted numbers in an earlier thread.
> > > > 
> > > > Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm talking about the
> > > > UPGRADE feature of HTTP generically, and not as it applies to the current
> > > > draft Websocket spec.
> > > 
> > > I thought they were related to the current version since it also uses
> > > Upgrade. Anyway, even if some don't support it yet, it will be easy
> > > to detect bypass them based on simple rules.
> > 
> > Um, will it?  How would that work?

[Good description of transparent proxies at ISPs with configurable
HTTP-aware rules on the routers.]

Ah, I thought you meant "It will be easy to bypass *broken transparent
proxies* based on simple rules *in the WebSocket clients and/or servers*".

I.e. how to cope when the request hits a transparent proxy that
doesn't work and you're *not* the ISP.

Failing as fast as possible, and recognising it as a failure, is
highly desirable if we can manage that.  I don't know if we can.  It
would need actual experiments on a broad cross-section of the net.

-- Jamie