Re: [hybi] New port and Tunneling?

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

On 16 August 2010 10:24, Shelby Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 07:03:05PM -0400, Shelby Moore wrote:
> We must have that fallback no matter what we do.  All options forward have
> failure cases.
>
>> If I had the choice, I'd rather go for
>> WS/TLS with a quick fail to WS/HTTP.
>
>
> WS/HTTP can fail at random times after that quick fail, you still need
> Comet/BOSH.

and Comet/BOSH can fail at random times.
All solutions need to handle the fact that the internet can fail silently.

I do not think it is possible to design a system that will always fast
fail, other than an explicit declaration by a participant that a
protocol is not supported.   It is impossible to design a handshake,
whose success will guarantee the delivery of a subsequent websocket
message .

The only real evidence of a protocol working is the protocol working.
The level of confidence in the protocol will be determined only by
mechanisms built into the protocol: messages, keep-alives, ping/pongs
and any extensions for acknowledgements etc.

There is no silver bullet.