W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: WebSocket over HTTP2 RFC6455 conformance

From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:16:23 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJbNbY6nFHaya6oEqvoBnkrf1MXv2M3qwVt_pvAcLTYwOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 19 February 2014 06:11, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com> wrote:
> > At hybi, the following people answered "yes & yes".
> When you ask about semantics, you need to be more precise.

Good point, Martin. Here're HyBi threads started recently and calling for
opinions for smaller primitive questions.

Is it important to know frame length at the start of frame?

Straw poll: Do you miss per-frame extension?

Straw poll: Do you miss interjectable WebSocket level control frame?

> My interpretation of "Websocket semantics" is the set of things that
> you can do with thewebsocketprotocol, or maybe the W3C WebSocket API.
> If your intent is to tunnel the protocol in a completely lossless
> fashion, then you are asking for more than just a preservation of
> semantics, you also want to preserve syntax.

Yutaka didn't mean to include syntax (I believe you meant binary
serialization), but preserving frame boundary, etc.

> Note that we preserve syntax in HTTP/2 because there is a wealth of
> usage out there that relies on syntax, and even if we might think it
> unwise to do so, we are still unwilling to break those users.  It
> might be that the hybi group has people using those reserved bits such
> that preserving them is paramount, but websockets has far less history
> than HTTP.  I also didn't find the framing of the question or the
> responses to be particularly convincing.

We're not pushing HyBi's decision but want to ask httpbis people's opinions
as well. Sorry if you felt like that.

So, you're also not interested in preserving RSV1-3 as-is even as
per-message basis?
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 05:17:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC