- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:53:49 +1100
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>
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. 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/
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 00:54:27 UTC