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

Re: workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:53:49 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <BB947F6D-15AA-455D-B830-5E12C80C1ACD@mnot.net>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
I don't think that's the relevant aspect here. "Another port" could be port 80 or port 443 (nasty, and you wouldn't make it the default, but I think you see where I'm going). 

The question is why it's necessary to run both HTTP and WebSockets traffic over the *same* port simultaneously -- something that AFAICT is taken as axiomatic, and I'm really wondering why.

Cheers,


On 26/11/2010, at 11:55 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> The problem with another port, is that the success rate of  opening an
> arbitrary port through firewalls is not that high.     Thus if
> websocket was allocated it's own sockets, then there would still be
> need for a websocket over 80 protocol (eg like there is BOSH for
> XMPP).

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:54:27 GMT

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