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

Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com> Tue, 21 May 2013 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <bruce@callenish.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 88A2011E80EC for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 h0iDHAAQCV2K for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz82.inmotionhosting.com (biz82.inmotionhosting.com [66.117.4.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECFD11E80E4 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [96.50.69.82] (port=63091 helo=[192.168.145.118]) by biz82.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bruce@callenish.com>) id 1Ueva8-0001Ul-L7; Tue, 21 May 2013 16:03:01 -0700
Message-ID: <519BFD21.70300@callenish.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:02:57 -0700
From: Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com>
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 <sbordet@intalio.com>
References: <CAH9hSJZxr+aG7GZa4f-dUOTGj4bnJ+3XxivUX4jei5CMyqN4LQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZUG1f+3Uk=t2=A5i4O9=wPvAisspM=pgmGEH9emTL9-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJZai_UuxW4O6mZcEJT2DJoURtLo16XNci1qkYVWv4HVdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFWmRJ0naLw=Om70ag3p2xJ8mYvgNHLL6Z_DtpiOjVWZ3iS5Dg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFWmRJ0naLw=Om70ag3p2xJ8mYvgNHLL6Z_DtpiOjVWZ3iS5Dg@mail.gmail.com>
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 - biz82.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - callenish.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz82.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: bruce+callenish.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Call for interest: multiplexing dedicated for WebSocket
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: 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.
>
>