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

Bruce Atherton <> Tue, 21 May 2013 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A2011E80EC for <>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h0iDHAAQCV2K for <>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECFD11E80E4 for <>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (port=63091 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1Ueva8-0001Ul-L7; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:01 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:02:57 -0700
From: Bruce Atherton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simone Bordet <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Call for interest: multiplexing dedicated for WebSocket
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 23:03:12 -0000

I agree. During the planning stages of the protocol there was a great 
deal of interest expressed in stand-alone WebSocket servers that were 
independent of any HTTP server. That has not been the real world 
deployment behaviour, at least in my experience. So long as HTTP/2.0 
doesn't introduce so much added complexity that it becomes too costly to 
include a server for it when you are deploying WebSockets, I don't see 
much benefit to a WebSockets-only mux definition any more, much though I 
appreciate the effort that Takeshi and John have put into it.

On 19/05/2013 11:37 AM, Simone Bordet wrote:
> My impression is that I have not seen much request for WebSocket multiplexing.
> Given the complexities related to defining and implementing ws mux
> correctly, and considering that HTTP/2.0 comes with mux built-in,
> building on the SPDY experience, my preference would be to
> deprioritize ws mux in favour of HTTP/2.0 integration.
> It is true that there may be systems that may rely on a pure-ws
> communication (and therefore do not need a full HTTP/2.0
> implementation) and as such would benefit from ws mux, but my guess is
> that those system will be a minority or can get by without ws mux. I
> may be biased on this view though, so comments welcome.