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

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Fri, 22 July 2011 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@intalio.com>
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 113E211E8086; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.843
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.843 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 4wdn9fsGCXhA; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5585811E8080; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so1656763vxi.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.76.197 with SMTP id m5mr956820vdw.308.1311303063749; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.115.103 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP992=GedTEfimykCWwdwm=BsZdwFRJO36EO0a_o7iejURJ+tQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <CALiegfk_GLAhAf=yEe6hYw2bwtxEwg9aJN+f0Bm9he5QgsRavA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=Ft6NwG+rbcuWUP0npwVNHY_znHmXmznBQO_krMo3RT6g@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmTWMP3GhS1-k2aoHHXkUkB+eWqV=2+BufuWVR1s2Z-EA@mail.gmail.com> <20110721163910.GA16854@1wt.eu> <CAP992=FrX5VxP2o0JLNoJs8nXXba7wbZ6RN9wBUYC0ZSN_wbAg@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <CALiegf=pYzybvc7WB2QfPg6FKrhLxgzHuP-DpuuMfZYJV6Z7FQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=FJymFPKcPVWrF-LkcEtNUz=Kt9L_ex+kLtjiGjL1T46w@mail.gmail.com> <4E28A51F.4020704@callenish.com> <9031.1311286867.939466@puncture> <4E28BA9D.6010501@callenish.com> <CAP992=GedTEfimykCWwdwm=BsZdwFRJO36EO0a_o7iejURJ+tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:51:03 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NEi9PStBQ2pzhswrWnipZR+0J0XSvZe_CwC0trGMEAXEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:51:05 -0000

I agree that DNS SRV is a matter outside the scope of  websockets,
which (for better or for worse) use a connection that is established
via a HTTP request.   Thus I do not think that the establishment of a
HTTP connection for websockets should differ in any way from the name
resolution handling of other HTTP connections made by a user-agent.
If the advocates of DNS SRV wish for websocket to use it, then they
need to convince HTTPbis (I think that is the right WG?) to adopt it
for all of HTTP and then websockets will inherit that feature.

If in future, there is a proposal to directly establish websocket
connections without a HTTP upgrade (as David Endicott has alluded to),
then I think DNS SRV should definitely be supported.

regards