W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2021

Re: Advertising WebSocket support in the HTTPS resource record

From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:35:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsAm=JusZ2fd6UMg35OOwmZhHgNM8LDEEJNR9yKaRGXDig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: Dragana Damjanovic <dragana.damjano@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:27 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021, 17:11 Ben Schwartz, <bemasc@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Rather than optimize the performance of origins that use WebSockets, and
>> support HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, but only support WebSockets on HTTP/1.1, I would
>> prefer to encourage server deployment of WebSockets support on all HTTP
>> versions.  We could also consider documenting a parallel connection
>> strategy for clients, if it's important to avoid a fallback delay.
>>
>
> That's an interesting point. Extended CONNECT isn't just for Websockets,
> as we are seeing with MASQUE developments. So I would expect cases where a
> server only :protocol connect-udp and NOT websockets, or vice versa. So to
> make this type of thing work, it seems like what is needed is a protocol
> hint (singular or a list) too.
>

My expectation is that the supported :protocols are handled like the
supported paths: the client knows which one it needs from the URI (e.g.
wss://..., https://.../foo), and the origin had better support it if it is
advertising those URIs anywhere.  I don't think we need a pre-connection
hint about the supported :protocols.

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2021 16:35:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 20 October 2021 16:35:47 UTC