W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

From: Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:10:36 -0800
To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d332ca91-394b-0ca5-9adc-ed9286e3ad05@gmail.com>
On 12/05/2016 07:56 AM, Van Catha wrote:
> BUT what WS1 did not consider is you could have a zombie socket from
> client->server, WS1 did not expose any API to check ping/pong this
> way.

This is not correct. WebSocket, as a protocol, is distinct from the JS 
API. WebSocket, as a protocol, has client->server pings. And there are 
WebSocket client implementations that expose them. Autobahn|Python, for 

> So to repeat making the mistakes of the past we have two options. #1
> Take ping out altogether as its broken, no browser
> client implemented the ability to send pings to server.

The fact that browsers did not see fit to use a part of the protocol 
does not mean that the protocol is "broken", IMHO. The JS API is not 
WebSocket; please don't conflate the two.

Now: perhaps your goal is that WS/2 should be an incompatible upgrade 
that streamlines and removes redundancies between HTTP/2 and WebSocket? 
If so, I think that's a reasonable thing to propose. I just disagree 
with it; I think the protocol is more likely to succeed if existing 
WebSocket implementations can transparently switch between WS/1 and WS/2 
transports as needed.

Received on Monday, 5 December 2016 18:11:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 5 December 2016 18:11:22 UTC