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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Wed, 27 July 2011 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E266A11E80D7; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.647
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, 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 Ba2qKf-4sVNz; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A84811E8099; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so1096803qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id j3mr114955qck.253.1311779970996; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <9031.1311538720.416128@puncture> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:19:30 +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 15:19:34 -0000

2011/7/27 Willy Tarreau <>eu>:
>> I don't think home users (neither professional users) has nothing to
>> decide here, they will not "resolve" the WS URI retrieved from a
>> webpage.
> I think you're wrong. Those are these users which ask for feature XXX or
> YYY that they like because it brings them a better experience. If you can
> find a real benefit for the end user, there will be an option in the browser
> and some of them will enable it. It's just important to find how an end user
> may benefit from making use of SRV tags when connecting to his favorite site
> instead of using just CNAME or A/AAAA. Maybe being able to always connect to
> less loaded servers would be appreciated, because some site maintainers will
> start announcing new servers. Maybe there are solutions to provide better
> geolocation using SRV than with A (ie: let the web browser decide which field
> to use instead of relying on its resolver's IP address). Maybe it will be
> possible for mobile users to automatically select a different port which is
> not subject to annoying transparent proxies at their provider. I don't know.
> You must think in terms of better experience which might be brought via
> better quality of service. Surely a DNS record might provide information to
> improve QoS based on the browser's decision.
>> So we are talking about webbrowser vendors, right? and typically there
>> are no more than.... 10?
> Browsers implement what their users ask for. They don't want to add features
> that are not desired and make experience worse or reduce reliability. But if
> users ask for something, they'll certainly implement it.

Well, I understand (and agree) most of your text, but I still think
that the URI resolution mechanism is something transparent for an
end-user. This is not like having FlashPlayer for showing annoying and
dancing menus in a web page XD. End-users ask for FlashPlayer (and
Android 2.3 has included it for example) but end-users won't ask for
"SRV procedures".

I would translate your arguments to "web developers", those who want
to provide scalable systems and for which having some kind of QoS
mechanisms (specially for mobile devices) is a great advantage. Of
course, if this happens then end-users would be happier :)

Iñaki Baz Castillo