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

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Thu, 08 September 2011 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <w@1wt.eu>
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 376E621F8520; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.964
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.921, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RaZjTKG+VIi1; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1wt.eu (1wt.eu [62.212.114.60]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9995B21F8514; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p88IEvAS026843; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:57 +0200
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:14:57 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <20110908181457.GB26702@1wt.eu>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5355F3EF-DD59-4D3C-9578-84043A3B8E90@gbiv.com> <4E620772.9090900@gmx.de> <4E6228F9.2030108@gmx.de> <20110903194323.GA19164@1wt.eu> <4E68EEB4.40600@stpeter.im>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E68EEB4.40600@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@iesg.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: 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: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:13:18 -0000

Hi Peter,

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:35:00AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Willy, I appreciate the proposed text. Here is a slightly tweaked version.
> 
> ###
> 
>    The WebSocket protocol is designed to supersede existing
>    bidirectional communication technologies which use HTTP as a
>    transport layer to benefit from existing infrastructure
>    (proxies, filtering, authentication).  Such technologies
>    were implemented as trade-offs between efficiency and reliability
>    because HTTP was not initially meant to be used for bidirectional
>    communication (see [RFC6202] for further discussion).  The
>    WebSocket protocol attempts to address the goals of existing
>    bidirectional HTTP technologies in the context of the existing
>    HTTP infrastructure; as such, it is designed to work over HTTP
>    ports 80 and 443 as well as to support HTTP proxies and
>    intermediaries, even if this implies some complexity specific to
>    the current environment.  However, the design does not limit
>    WebSocket to HTTP, and future implementations could use a
>    simpler handshake over a dedicated port without revinventing
>    the entire protocol.  This last point is important because the
>    traffic patterns of interactive messaging do not closely match
>    standard HTTP traffic and can induce unusual loads on some
>    components.
> 
> ###
> 
> I shall enter an RFC Editor Note in the datatracker with that text as a
> placeholder, with the understanding that the text might change based on
> further discussion.

Looks fine to me.

Thanks,
Willy