- From: Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 10:10:36 -0800
- To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12/05/2016 07:56 AM, Van Catha wrote: > BUT what WS1 did not consider is you could have a zombie socket from > client->server, WS1 did not expose any API to check ping/pong this > way. This is not correct. WebSocket, as a protocol, is distinct from the JS API. WebSocket, as a protocol, has client->server pings. And there are WebSocket client implementations that expose them. Autobahn|Python, for example. > So to repeat making the mistakes of the past we have two options. #1 > Take ping out altogether as its broken, no browser > client implemented the ability to send pings to server. The fact that browsers did not see fit to use a part of the protocol does not mean that the protocol is "broken", IMHO. The JS API is not WebSocket; please don't conflate the two. Now: perhaps your goal is that WS/2 should be an incompatible upgrade that streamlines and removes redundancies between HTTP/2 and WebSocket? If so, I think that's a reasonable thing to propose. I just disagree with it; I think the protocol is more likely to succeed if existing WebSocket implementations can transparently switch between WS/1 and WS/2 transports as needed. --Jacob
Received on Monday, 5 December 2016 18:11:19 UTC