Re: [hybi] [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com Wed, 19 August 2009 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C523A6CB0; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.871
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.871 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.728, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBLwgfP0KRR1; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (e33.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586863A6C8B; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7JJ9VDX005335; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:09:31 -0600
Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n7JJBO96108538; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:11:26 -0600
Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n7JJBOeg003980; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:11:24 -0600
Received: from internet1.lotus.com (internet1.lotus.com [9.32.140.212]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n7JJBN5v003937 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:11:24 -0600
Received: from wtfmail05.lotus.com (WTFMAIL05.lotus.com [9.32.140.23]) by internet1.lotus.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n7JJBNYO2220052; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:11:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20090819164618.GA991@shareable.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.1 January 17, 2006
Message-ID: <OFB1F05FED.A9F02091-ON85257617.00682518-85257617.00695076@lotus.com>
From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:13:44 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL05/WTF/M/Lotus(Build V851_08132009|August 13, 2009) at 08/19/2009 03:13:45 PM, Serialize complete at 08/19/2009 03:13:45 PM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>, uri@w3.org, 'David Booth' <david@dbooth.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 19 Aug 2009 19:11:35 -0000

Jamie Lokier writes:

> Secondly, this thread has talked about protocols on top of protocols
> (because every WebSockets application will be one).  Given a URI, you
> cannot tell from Content-Type whether that URI supports WebDAV, and
> you cannot tell whether that URI accepts POSTs to submit new blog
> entries - just to pick two widely used examples.
> 
> That requires another level of descriptive metadata

You're pointing out that the Web doesn't use static interface 
descriptions, except insofar as the rules for HTTP and URIs are set out in 
advance.

On the Web, you don't ask for static metadata that answers the question: 
"if I were to try a WebDav HTTP method on URI X, would it work?"  You try 
it.  HTTP tells you whether it worked, and if it did, gives back 
information that is interpretable (relatively) unambiguously per the 
specifications for URI (RFC 3986), which delegate to HTTP (RFC 2616), 
which in turn delegates to the media-type registration for the 
Content-type, etc.

FWIW: Web Services with WSDL take the opposite approach.  Web services do 
tend to emphasize static interface descriptions, advertised in advance. 
While there's endless gnashing regarding the pros and cons, it's along the 
lines of:  advance descriptions can be aids to tooling, debugging, and 
sometimes optimization, but dynamically negotiated contracts are usually 
more flexible.  In particular, I don't think the Web would work nearly as 
well if each URI had to advertise in advance:  "if you try a GET, I'll 
support it, and you'll get an image/jpeg".  Just do the GET, or WebDav, 
and see what happens.

Anyway, I thing we should wrap up this aspect of the discussion.  There 
are indeed some interesting questions as to how self-describing the 
websocket protocols should be, but here I think we're mainly concerned 
with the choice of URI scheme. 

Noah


--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------