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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:30:20 -0800
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>, hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <81870DB1-B177-4253-8233-52C4168BE99D@apple.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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.

Web developers will likely want to operate both a WebSocket service and an HTTP service on the same server, since WebSocket services are likely to be most useful in combination with a Web application that makes use of them. At the same time, they will want their WebSocket traffic to go through firewalls properly. It would be a significant burden if a WebSocket service required a separate domain name, physical or virtual server, and possibly SSL cert.

Thus desire to have a single piece of server software that can dispatch connects to HTTP applications or Web applications as appropriate.


> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 01:31:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC