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

Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 19:47:46 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9jj0pZzNjrJ+rTXd6ZYnp284ugcKXALcj-Wt6@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Cc: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
If 6543 is the websocket port, then it would not matter in an
intermediary intercepted and interpreted

  CONNECT some.host.com:6543 HTTP/1.1

as the implementation of that is likely to be exactly the semantics
that we want.


An intermediary that incepts and interpets

  CONNECT some.special.token HTTP/1.1

is going to break.





On 1 December 2010 19:33, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1 December 2010 19:01, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> wrote:
>> > That seems like a matter of perspective.  When opening a connection to
>> > a WebSocket server, can one not view the server as a proxy sever?
>>
>>
>> If Websocket was allocated it's own dedicated port (say 6543 for example),
>> then opening a connection to some.host.com:80 and sending
>>
>>  CONNECT some.host.com:6543 HTTP/1.1
>>
>> would definitely be like a proxy server (and it could even be
>> implemented that way, although I expect many servers would optimise
>> out the trombone).
>>
>>
>> But I'm not sure that
>>
>>  CONNECT some.special.token HTTP/1.1
>>
>> could be consider a proxy or in the spirit of the HTTP spec.
>
> I think the concerns about how this interpreted should only be about
> intermediaries -- the endpoints know that the connection could be a
> WebSocket connection and can process it accordingly.  However, the
> intermediaries cannot be relied on to recognize this, so the question
> becomes which method of sending the WebSocket connection through HTTP
> intermediaries is least likely to confuse them and most likely to transit
> unharmed?
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:48:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT