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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 27 July 2011 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E266A11E80D7; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.647
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ba2qKf-4sVNz; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (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 10.229.78.67 with SMTP id j3mr114955qck.253.1311779970996; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.224.212 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110727140302.GB7225@1wt.eu>
References: <20110724185949.GB22405@1wt.eu> <9031.1311538720.416128@puncture> <20110724204236.GG22405@1wt.eu> <CALiegfkgukeaiMR-Yc15qUJYCB-KPcoNoX4G6NrN4+DOiDS+tw@mail.gmail.com> <20110726192850.GB3692@1wt.eu> <CALiegfndubt3xgRLFWUikhizsvX60p4+b0DcouX0_m5B8vestg@mail.gmail.com> <20110727101757.GA6586@1wt.eu> <CALiegfmMO2Es6P=qy4m=XULVQE9bDp7S0LYXG_9n4Lk9yirGXQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110727124545.GA6931@1wt.eu> <CALiegf=YCCYuoVk1isPOwfB1z8mpSxbJmFHU5vEyQo7xOGH5RA@mail.gmail.com> <20110727140302.GB7225@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:19:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmWWL2sxB=4=kD-YmE30rsS3_-DGqePCohv_hv2QQfJUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:19:34 -0000

2011/7/27 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>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
<ibc@aliax.net>