Re: [hybi] Call for interest: multiplexing dedicated for WebSocket

[Takeshi Yoshino <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Tobias Oberstein <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> >>However, when running _different_ apps on the same device connecting to
> the same origin,
>
> >You meant same ws:// address?
>
> Yes, sorry not origin.
>
> I had a look into the MUX RFC again .. couldn't find anser to the
> following (may have missed sth):
>

It's not yet specified.


> What WS addresses would be eligible to be multiplexed over a single WS
> connection?
>
> a) ws://somehost.com:999/
> b) ws://somehost.com:999/foo
> c) ws://somehost.com:999/bar
>
> d) wss://somehost.com:999/
> e) wss://somehost.com:999/foo
> f) wss://somehost.com:999/bar
>
> All of a) - f) are to the same target IP:port and hence could share the
> same TCP.
>

I think it's fine.


> However, d) - f) use wss, and hence have a TLS handshake right after TCP
> establishment.
>

Right unless TLS parameters differ (such as client cert) between paths.

See also SPDY's CREDENTIAL frame.
https://github.com/grmocg/SPDY-Specification/blob/gh-pages/draft-mbelshe-spdy-00.txt


> So d) - f) cannot be multiplexed over the same physical WS as a) - c)?
>

It's fine and up to the client.


> Or can an implementation just "silently" transport a)-c) also over wss,
> and hence multiplex all of a) - f) over 1 physical WS?
>
> Lastly, a)-c) are to the same target IP:port and also WS schema (ws, not
> wss) - and hence can be multiplexed over 1 physical WS even though they are
> to different URL paths?
>
> IOW: in the context of ws-mux, what is "same target"?


Basically ip:port. We don't need to isolate them based on hostname, I
believe, unless it's required by some security/privacy policy.