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

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

From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:34:56 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTin_k_s7yOSP1QUXyy66p=gweeepySFG+C=kGYJ+@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.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>
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 18:57:08 GMT

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