ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-07-27 10:59:24
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:43:58AM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
2011/7/26 Willy Tarreau <w(_at_)1wt(_dot_)eu>:
if you want to have any chance of making SRV *usable* with WS (or
HTTP), you have to motivate both sides by showing them that :
 - it's better for them to use it than not to use it (both servers and
   browsers)
 - the additional cost of using it is negligible
 - there are no issues with not using it

These are godd points, but I never wanted to propose SRV for HTTP as I
consider it's just unfeasible at this time (take into account the
ammount of HTTP clients in the world, as browsers, libraries in any
language and so on).

That's where I think you're mistaken. As long as you think of it as mandatory
this will not be possible. When you think of it as optional and with an added
value, then you will progressively see clients adopt it and make use of it.
Since the beginning, you're proposing the option as mandatory "just because"
and not for a perceivable added value by both sides. The downsides then
outweigh the benefits. But maybe the benefits do not really exist after all,
otherwise a valid attractive proposal would already have been made by the
time we spent discussing it.

 - leaving the choices to the intermediaries will not cause disruptions

This last point is hard to accomplish (I'm just talking about SRV for
WS, not for HTTP) because HTTP proxies should be capable of
determining that a GET request is in fact a WS handshake, and *just*
in that case perform SRV procedures over the domain (assuming that
there won't be SRV in the old, anti-fashion and technologically
limited HTTP world).

Once again, if you expect *all* HTTP proxies to be able to do that, your
proposal fails. If you expect that at least *some* HTTP proxies will be
able to do that with a benefit, then something is possible. Let me repeat
it, technologies are adopted, not forced on users.

I'm pretty sure that can be done, but clearly not the way it's been
presented till now.

If the requeriment for including SRV in WS is also including it in
HTTP then I surrender. I don't think it will never happen, neither I'm
an expert in HTTP for such kind of proposal.

Probably that starting by enumerating in a draft the benefits it could bring
would be a good start. You seem to be very well convinced that there are
benefits, so you're probably one of the few persons able to start such a
draft.

Regards,
Willy

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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