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

David Booth <david@dbooth.org> Tue, 08 September 2009 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <david@dbooth.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A7B3A6781 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 qk82U8YwXKL7 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay03.pair.com (relay03.pair.com [209.68.5.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B1D83A694C for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 98894 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2009 21:14:15 -0000
Received: from 192.35.79.70 (HELO ?10.78.165.46?) (192.35.79.70) by relay03.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Sep 2009 21:14:15 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 192.35.79.70
From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
To: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>
In-Reply-To: <4AA2A630.32731.824DABF@dan.tobias.name>
References: <OF22CD1320.96C55266-ON85257610.004AB599-85257610.004BC9CA@lotus.com> , <Pine.LNX.4.62.0909040147300.6775@hixie.dreamhostps.com> , <814B1BD3-17E5-412E-8111-CD226CF3C214@tobyinkster.co.uk> <4AA2A630.32731.824DABF@dan.tobias.name>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:14:15 -0400
Message-Id: <1252444455.16404.646.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>, hybi@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:13:46 -0000

On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 13:56 -0400, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2009 at 17:04, Toby Inkster wrote:
> 
> > In particular, you in your role as authority are free to decree that  
> > this:
> > 
> > 	http://websockets.net/example.com/foo
> > 
> > Represents a Web Sockets path of "/foo" running on port 81 of the  
> > host example.com.
> 
> ...which reminds me of Abraham Lincoln declaring that a tail is a 
> leg, and asking how many legs a horse has... for which the answer is 
> still four, because a tail doesn't become a leg even if somebody in 
> "authority" says so.

You seem to have missed the point.  A string like
"http://websockets.net/" is not *intrinsically* tied to the Web Sockets
protocol any more than the string "wss: is.  It only becomes tied to the
Web Sockets protocol if the social entity that has the *authority* to
decree such a link does so.  In the case of "wss:", that authority
belongs to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).  In the case
of "http://websockets.net/" that authority belongs to the owner of
websockets.net.  (See Architecture of the World Wide Web section
2.2.2.1:
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-uri-ownership )
The principle is *exactly* the same.  

In one case, an agent supporting Web Sockets would recognize the "wss:
prefix, and in the other case, an agent supporting Web Sockets would
recognize the "http://websockets.net/" prefix.  But in the latter case,
an agent that does *not* recognize the "http://websockets.net/" prefix
*might* still be able to do something useful with the URI, by invoking
the HTTP protocol.  Whereas in the former case, an agent that does not
recognize the "wss:" prefix would be unable to do anything further with
it.  This is the benefit of *layering* special purpose protocols on top
of http URIs: it enables good old HTTP to be used as a fallback when
that special purpose protocol is not supported.



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.