RE: #250 / #251 (connect bodies)

We send this mail from a law firm.
We are not interested in receiving emails advertising.
Under Law 34/2002 of 11 July, Services of information society and electronic commerce, you are notified about the responsibility that you may incur if you keep sending emails.
We want that our data are deleted from its database

Juan M. Sierra Lebrón 
C/ Pau Claris, 190 - 2º 1ª  -  08037 Barcelona
Telf. 935 157 234 -  Fax 934 873 677

Cláusula confidencial
El contenido de este mensaje y cualquier documento adjunto al mismo son confidenciales. Tienen el sólo propósito de su uso por el individuo o entidad designado como receptor. Si recibe este mensaje por error, se le informa, que su lectura, divulgación, copia o distribución está estrictamente prohibida y le rogamos nos lo notifique por e-mail a (
 Antes de imprimir este e-mail, piense bien si es necesario hacerlo.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: [] En nombre de Mark Nottingham
Enviado el: viernes, 29 de octubre de 2010 1:13
Para: Willy Tarreau
CC: Adam Barth; Julian Reschke; Adrien de Croy; HTTP Working Group
Asunto: Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies)

On 29/10/2010, at 7:23 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Are you suggesting to be HTTP compliant but to just use a different port ?
> If so, then I agree that we can easily reuse existing infrastructure without
> implying risks on existing shared hosting environments. But it's not clear
> to me that it is what you're talking about. My understanding is that you
> want to get rid of the HTTP compatibility which at the same time would
> require to reinvent all the components to offer the features above.
> I think that it is a solution which has never been suggested on the hybi WG
> to use HTTP over a different port. Either it was HTTP on same port with
> horrible tricks, or something very different and incompatible on a dedicated
> port. The more I think about it, the more I like the principle of HTTP over
> another port !

If the request-line doesn't have HTTP/ in it, I don't care what it does on another port... however, if I were actually designing WebSockets to be a successful protocol, I don't know that I'd want to be constrained to HTTP syntax, given that it's not getting much benefit from doing so. The concepts that you're interested in can be reused without dragging along all of the baggage.

> BTW, I'm suspecting we're getting off-topic for this WG and that this discussion
> should move to hybi.

Hey, that's my job :)


Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 07:52:37 UTC