- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:13:49 +0200
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Patrick, On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:01:01AM -0400, Patrick McManus wrote: > I know this has been said before by the Chrome team, but I too am starting > to see websocket bugs pile up due to transparent proxies that don't speak > upgrade and explicit proxies that don't let you tunnel to port 80 as > configured. (bluecoat and MS ISA/TMG are the most common I hear about). > ws:// hasn't been very successful in those environments but wss:// has > been. Good thing that in the websockets world there aren't a lot of legacy > urls to worry about - not true for http :( On the other hand, we could say that one big difference between WS and HTTP is that with WS you don't have much possible fallback while with HTTP the fallback is HTTP/1.1. Regards, Willy
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 13:14:29 UTC