Re: WebSockets -- only TCP?

RFC 6455 defines WSP as a TCP protocol [1]

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-1.5

at present the WebSocket API is nothing more than a thin layer over WSP,
and references WSP for all protocol bindings;

there is no "discarding" of UDP involved; it simply is/was not a
requirement driving WSP;

if someone defines a new flavor of WSP in the future based on UDP, e.g.,
WSPU, then the WebSocket API could be updated to make reference to it;

in conclusion, I don't see any cause to change the WebSocket API draft to
explicitly suggest use of an alternative protocol (to WSP) since none
exists at this time;

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to comment on the current (20120313) WebSockets
> specification.
>
> The text sounds to me like it implicitly assumes that all
> protocols are run over TCP.  It could be said that the choice
> of URL makes it sufficiently general to include UDP (and
> possibly SCTP), but the usage of terms like connecting sends
> a hint to implementers that support of TCP would suffice.
>
> If the intention is to create a TCP-only WebSocket, then I
> think this should be made explicit.  And if UDP would also
> be supported, then a remark around connection states that
> some apply only to connection-oriented URL protocols would
> send a clearer message to implementers.
>
> I do think UDP is too important to discard from WebSockets;
> among the things we can do with current technology (Flash or
> Java) is a softphone running in a browser; in a TCP-only
> HTML5 environment with deprecated support for these
> technologies such options would have no standing ground.
>
>
> I hope this is helpful feedback.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Rick van Rein
> OpenFortress
>
>
>