W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Proposal: add websocket close codes for "server not found" and/or "too many websockets open"

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:28:16 +0200
To: public-webapps@w3.org, "Jason Duell" <jduell.mcbugs@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.wenl1epiidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:17:45 +0200, Jason Duell <jduell.mcbugs@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> So the Web Socket spec is a little vague on how JS is notified when
> the targeted web socket server is down/nonexistent/etc.
>
> Firefox is firing an 'error' event when this happens, based on the
> language here in the W3C spec:
>
>   "if the status code received from the server is not 101 (e.g. it is
> a redirect), the user agent must fail the websocket connection"
>
> Chrome is not calling onerror for this, so we have a difference here.
>  The language in the spec isn't really clear if this covers the
> connection-never-happened case.
>
> Both Chrome and Firefox (haven't tested other browsers/clients) are
> then calling close with code=1006, which seems the best code available
> in RFC 6455, but the language there isn't great either:
>
>    "to indicate that the connection was closed abnormally, e.g.,
> without sending or receiving a Close control frame."
>
> There's essentially no mention in either spec of what happens when
> there never was any connection to the server..
>
> It would be useful to be clear about whether onerror should be called
> here.   I'm also wondering if it would be useful to have a dedicated
> error code for this case ("server not available').

I believe it would be a security problem to expose to scripts detailed  
reasons about how it failed to connect.


> Also:  I expect every browser that implements web sockets will have
> some limit on the number of websockets it allows to be open at once
> (to prevent DoS attacks if nothing else).

The spec has a simple measure against DoS -- only allowing one socket in  
the connecting state at a time per host (or some such). But there can be  
platform-specific limitations.


>   I'm not sure of what the
> right close code for this is.  Ideas?  Perhaps we could also use a
> dedicated code for this case too.

Or throw an exception? Or queue the connection? I've touched on this  
subject before, but we didn't reach any conclusion as to what the right  
thing to do is.


> Jason Duell
> Mozilla
>


-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 10:29:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:52 GMT