IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 22 July 2011 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F391621F8786 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 03:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.07
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.07 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V8Xmd7gpu4Jm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 03:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B15F21F85F1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 03:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25474 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2011 10:54:06 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 22 Jul 2011 10:54:06 -0000
Message-ID: <4E295249.5060700@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:34:49 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALiegfk0zVVRBbOP4ugsVXKmcLnryujP6DZqF6Bu_dC2C3PpeQ@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311082001.631622@puncture> <CALiegfk_GLAhAf=yEe6hYw2bwtxEwg9aJN+f0Bm9he5QgsRavA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=Ft6NwG+rbcuWUP0npwVNHY_znHmXmznBQO_krMo3RT6g@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmTWMP3GhS1-k2aoHHXkUkB+eWqV=2+BufuWVR1s2Z-EA@mail.gmail.com> <20110721163910.GA16854@1wt.eu> <CAP992=FrX5VxP2o0JLNoJs8nXXba7wbZ6RN9wBUYC0ZSN_wbAg@mail.gmail.com> <9031.1311270000.588511@puncture> <4E28C035.6020009@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <9031.1311328268.180517@puncture>
In-Reply-To: <9031.1311328268.180517@puncture>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:35:23 -0000

Dave Cridland wrote:

>> Where is a proof?
> 
> Sorry, I've a habit of using the word "proof" in the English

> 1) There are no SRV records.
> 2) Therefore browsers do not support them.
> 3) Therefore you'd need to allow for A-lookup as fallback for the 
> forseeable future.
> 4) Therefore there's no incentive for browsers to support SRV.

That's a perfect proof against IPv6 deployment. Infrastructure
won't be updated.

However, for application layers issues like SRV ones, thanks to
the end to end argument, only servers and clients need
upgrading without infrastructure changes, which is why major
application of the Internet changed from ftp to http.

							Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email