W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:13:06 +1100
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D4D403A8-A64E-4C9A-B254-1E1764DC64C8@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
On 29/10/2010, at 7:23 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Are you suggesting to be HTTP compliant but to just use a different port ?
> If so, then I agree that we can easily reuse existing infrastructure without
> implying risks on existing shared hosting environments. But it's not clear
> to me that it is what you're talking about. My understanding is that you
> want to get rid of the HTTP compatibility which at the same time would
> require to reinvent all the components to offer the features above.
> 
> I think that it is a solution which has never been suggested on the hybi WG
> to use HTTP over a different port. Either it was HTTP on same port with
> horrible tricks, or something very different and incompatible on a dedicated
> port. The more I think about it, the more I like the principle of HTTP over
> another port !

If the request-line doesn't have HTTP/ in it, I don't care what it does on another port... however, if I were actually designing WebSockets to be a successful protocol, I don't know that I'd want to be constrained to HTTP syntax, given that it's not getting much benefit from doing so. The concepts that you're interested in can be reused without dragging along all of the baggage.


> BTW, I'm suspecting we're getting off-topic for this WG and that this discussion
> should move to hybi.

Hey, that's my job :)

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 23:13:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:32 GMT