ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-07-23 11:50:06
2011/7/21 David Endicott <dendicott(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>:
Do they?   A http uri and a ws uri have the same host/path construction.
 It's really only the scheme that differs - and that identifies the
transport protocol to be used.   Resolution of host name/addresses and
mapping of paths "should" be consistent.
WS is a connection that is semantically related to the URI of the request.

e.g. I could ws://host/davesaid  and get live traffic of what Dave is
saying, and then I could ws://host/bobsaid  and get traffic of what Bob
says.  I wouldn't get Bob on /davesaid and I wouldn't get Dave on /bobsaid.
   Dynamic content identified by a URI
And if I http://host/davesaid  I could get a <li> of what Dave said.
Static content of a URI.
It could be problematic if  ws://host/davesaid resolves to a different
address than http://host/davesaid.     (Or it could be advantage - not for
us to decide, however)

David, this does not make sense at all. Let see this case:

a) mailto:alice(_at_)google(_dot_)com
b) xmpp:alice(_at_)google(_dot_)com
c) sip:alice@google,com
d) http://google.com
e) ws://google.com

Do you really expect that all those URI's should point to the same
server??? not, right? then, why e) should behave like d)?

And of course, protocols defining a kind of URI (specific for such
protocol) CAN and probably MUST also define how to locate such URI
destination. In case of http just poor A/AAAA is done, but in other
cases we all do know that other kind of DNS queries are done.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc(_at_)aliax(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>