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

If 6543 is the websocket port, then it would not matter in an
intermediary intercepted and interpreted


as the implementation of that is likely to be exactly the semantics
that we want.

An intermediary that incepts and interpets

  CONNECT some.special.token HTTP/1.1

is going to break.

On 1 December 2010 19:33, John Tamplin <> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Greg Wilkins <> wrote:
>> On 1 December 2010 19:01, Adam Barth <> wrote:
>> > That seems like a matter of perspective.  When opening a connection to
>> > a WebSocket server, can one not view the server as a proxy sever?
>> If Websocket was allocated it's own dedicated port (say 6543 for example),
>> then opening a connection to and sending
>> would definitely be like a proxy server (and it could even be
>> implemented that way, although I expect many servers would optimise
>> out the trombone).
>> But I'm not sure that
>>  CONNECT some.special.token HTTP/1.1
>> could be consider a proxy or in the spirit of the HTTP spec.
> I think the concerns about how this interpreted should only be about
> intermediaries -- the endpoints know that the connection could be a
> WebSocket connection and can process it accordingly.  However, the
> intermediaries cannot be relied on to recognize this, so the question
> becomes which method of sending the WebSocket connection through HTTP
> intermediaries is least likely to confuse them and most likely to transit
> unharmed?
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 18:48:19 UTC