- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:11:19 -0700
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think 'readyState' should just go away since an application will
> > > > have to keep track of state updates through the fired events and use
> > > > try/catch blocks around all API calls anyway.
> > >
> > > The attribute is mostly present for debugging purposes. I wouldn't
> > > expect anyone to actually use it for production work.
> >
> > Is there precedent for other portions of the API that are mostly for
> > debugging purposes? (I can't think of anything off the top of my head.)
>
> readyState on Document and <video> aren't realy useful for anything but
> debugging either, as far as I can tell.
>
>
> > Also, maybe it should be noted as such in the spec?
>
> I don't really see much benefit to including such a statement; if someone
> wants to use it for a non-debugging reason, why not do so?
>
>
> > If it's only for debugging purposes, maybe a cleaner way to define it is
> > to simply be the last event fired on a given WebSocket?
>
> I don't really understand what problem we would be trying to solve by
> changing that.
>
>
> > One other random question: in the IDL for WebSockets, the three
> > constants for ready state are all defined as shorts but the value of
> > ready state is a long. Is this an oversight?
>
> Fixed.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Michael that send() should not silently drop data that
> > could not be sent. It is very easy to fill send buffers, and if bytes
> > get silently dropped, implementing app-level acks becomes quite
> > difficult.
>
> I've made it clear that if bytes can't be sent, the connection must be
> closed.
>
>
> > However, I do not think that raising an exception is an appropriate
> > answer. Often, the TCP implementation takes a part of data given to it,
> > and asks to resubmit the rest later. So, just returning an integer
> > result from send() would be best in my opinion.
>
> I think we are best off abstracting away this level of complexity from
> authors, especially since we'd need to make sure that data was not sent
> half-way through a UTF-8 sequence, and since the framing is under the
> control of the UA, not the application. There's no way to retry a
> partially-successful send() from the API here.
>
>
> > 1) Web Sockets is specified to send whatever authentication credentials
> > the client has for the resource. However, there is no challenge-response
> > sequence specified, which seems to prevent using common auth schemes.
> > HTTP Basic needs to know an authentication realm for the credentials,
> > and other schemes need a cryptographic challenge (e.g. nonce for Digest
> > auth).
>
> I expect to address this in more detail in a future version. For now, use
> in-band authentication in the WebSocket once you are connected. We may
> find that that is actually enough.
>
>
> > 2) It is not specified what the server does when credentials are
> > incorrect, so I assume that the intended behavior is to close the
> > connection. Unlike HTTP 401 response, this doesn't give the client a
> > chance to ask the user again. Also, if the server is on a different
> > host, especially one that's not shared with an HTTP server, there isn't
> > a way to obtain credentials, in the first place.
>
> How we address this will likely depend on how we address the earlier
> point.
>
>
> > 3) A Web Sockets server cannot respond with a redirect to another URL.
> > I'm not sure if the intention is to leave this to implementations, or to
> > add in Web Sockets v2, but it definitely looks like an important feature
> > to me, maybe something that needs to be in v1.
>
> What's the use case? Why does this need to be at the connection layer
> rather than the application layer? (Why would we need this, when TCP
> doesn't have it? Would you also need "redirect"-like functonality in IRC,
> IMAP, SSH, and other such protocols?)
>
>
> > 4) "If the user agent already has a Web Socket connection to the remote
> > host identified by /host/ (even if known by another name), wait until
> > that connection has been established or for that connection to have
> > failed."
> >
> > It doesn't look like "host identified by /host/" is defined anywhere.
> > Does this requirement say that IP addresses should be compared, instead
> > of host names?
>
> Right. I've tried to clarify this.
>
>
> > I'm not sure if this is significant for preventing DoS attacks, and
> > anyway, the IP address may not be known before a request is sent. This
> > puts an unusual burden on the implementation.
>
> Without this requirement, you can just have a DNS server return the victim
> IP for a wildcard DNS entry, and then just have attackers open connections
> to thousands of "hosts".
>
>
> > 5) We probably need to specify a keep-alive feature to avoid proxy
> > connection timeout. I do not have factual data on whether common proxies
> > implement connection timeout, but I'd expect them to often do.
>
> This seems like something that would be easy to deal with at the
> application layer, if desired.
>
>
> > 6) The spec should probably explicitly permit blocking some ports from
> > use with Web Sockets at UA's discretion. In practice, the list would
> > likely be the same as for HTTP, see e.g.
> > <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/PortBanning.html>.
>
> Done.
>
>
> > 7) "use a SOCKS proxy for WebSocket connections, if available, or failing
> > that, to prefer an HTTPS proxy over an HTTP proxy"
> >
> > It is not clear what definition of proxy types is used here. To me, an
> HTTPS
> > proxy is one that supports CONNECT to port 443, and an HTTP proxy (if
> we're
> > making a distinction from HTTPS) is one that intercepts and forwards GET
> > requests. However, this understanding contradicts an example in paragraph
> > 3.1.3, and also, it's not clear how a GET proxy could be used for Web
> Sockets.
>
> Clarified, I hope.
>
>
> > 8) Many HTTPS proxies only allow connecting to port 443. Do you have the
> > data on whether relying on existing proxies to establish connections to
> > arbitrary ports is practical?
>
> I do not. I expect most people to use direct connections over port 81 or
> TLS over port 443, as discussed in the introduction.
>
>
> > 9) "There is no limit to the number of established Web Socket
> > connections a user agent can have with a single remote host".
> >
> > Does this mean that Web Socket connections are exempt from the normal
> > 4-connection (or so) limit? Why is it OK?
>
> That limit is an HTTP limit. WebSocket is not an HTTP protocol, so the
> limit has no bearing on WebSocket.
>
> As I understand it, the limit in HTTP is intended to deal with the problem
> of multiple short-lived connections being needed to render a page, e.g.
> going to a Web page with thousands of <img>s. There would be no way for
> the author to ensure the page didn't DOS the server in such a case. This
> is not a concern with WebSocket, where the author controls when the
> connections are made.
>
>
> > 10) Web Socket handshake uses CRLF line endings strictly. Does this add
> > much to security? It prevents using telnet/netcat for debugging, which
> > is something I personally use often when working on networking issues.
> >
> > If there is no practical reason for this, I'd suggest relaxing this
> > aspect of parsing.
>
> Do you mean client->server or server->client?
>
>
> > 11) There is no way for the client to know that the connection has been
> > closed. For example:
> > - socket.close() is called from JavaScript;
> > - onclose handler is invoked;
> > - more data arrives from the server, and onmessage is dispatched (which I
> > think is correct, and it matches what TCP does);
> > - finally, a TCP FIN arrives, indicating that there will be no more data
> from
> > the server (the underlying TCP connection is in TIME_WAIT state after
> that);
> > - the client never learns that the server is done sending data.
>
> The onclose only fires once the connection has closed, which is after the
> TCP FIN, so it happens after the last 'message' event.
>
>
> > As Web Sockets are basically at the same level as TCP, and TCP provides
> > complete info about socket state, I don't think that delegating
> > connection closing to app-level protocols would be appropriate.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >
> > With WebSocket, another possibility is for the implementation to buffer
> > pending data that could not yet be sent to the TCP layer, so that the
> > client of WebSocket doesn't have to be exposed to system limitations. At
> > that point, an exception is only needed if the implementation runs out
> > of memory for buffering. With a system TCP implementation, the buffering
> > would be in kernel space, which is a scarce resource, but user space
> > memory inside the implementation is no more scarce than user space
> > memory held by the Web application waiting to send to the WebSocket.
>
> Indeed.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> >
> > I agree that this will help if the application sends data in burst mode,
> > but what if it just constantly sends more than the network can transmit?
> > It will never learn that it's misbehaving, and will just take more and
> > more memory.
>
> I've added an attribute that says how much data has been buffered, so an
> application can tell if this number is rising unexpectedly.
>
>
> > An example where adapting to network bandwidth is needed is of course
> > file uploading, but even if we dismiss it as a special case that can be
> > served with custom code, there's also e.g. captured video or audio that
> > can be downgraded in quality for slow connections.
>
> We may have to do more complex things when we introduce files and streams,
> but in practice I expect those to be a non-issue since the UA would take
> care of them completely with just one send() call.
>
> function upload(file) {
> websocket.send(file);
> }
>
> websocket.startSendingStream(camera.stream);
> ...
> websocket.stopSendingStream(camera.stream);
>
> ...or something. Those are in fact far easier to deal with than just
> continuous updates of the user's progress in a game or some such.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the right behavior is to buffer in user-space (like Maciej
> > explained) up until a limit (left up to the UA) and then anything beyond
> > that results in an exception. This seems like it'd handle bursty
> > communication and would keep the failure model simple.
>
> Running out of space is hitting a hardware limitation, at which point you
> can do whatever you like (the spec doesn't require any particular
> behaviour in such scenarios, since what is possible depends on the UA).
>
> I have, however, made the spec clear that if the send() fails somehow, the
> connection must be closed.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
> >
> > Having a send() that doesn't return anything and doesn't raise
> > exceptions would be a clear signal that send() just blocks until it's
> > possible to send data to me, and I'm sure to many others, as well. There
> > is no reason to silently drop data sent over a TCP connection - after
> > all, we could as well base the protocol on UDP if we did, and lose
> > nothing.
>
> I think returning a boolean is more or less the same as "silently
> dropping" in practice.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
> >
> > There's another option besides blocking, raising an exception, and
> > dropping data: unlimited buffering in user space. So I'm saying we
> > should not put any limits on the amount of user-space buffering we're
> > willing to do, any more than we put any limits on the amount of other
> > types of user-space memory allocation a page can perform.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Alexey that applications need feedback when they're
> > consistentiently exceeding what your net connection can handle. I think
> > an application getting an exception rather than filling up its buffer
> > until it OOMs is a much better experience for the user and the web
> > developer.
>
> True. the .bufferedAmount attribute will now allow this.
>
>
> > If you have application level ACKs (which you probably
> > should--especially in high-throughput uses), you really shouldn't even
> > hit the buffer limits that a UA might have in place. I don't really
> > think that having a limit on the buffer size is a problem and that, if
> > anything, it'll promote better application level flow control.
>
> Probably true also.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
> >
> > I'm assuming that no actual limits would be specified in the
> > specification, so it would be entirely up to a given UserAgent to decide
> > how much buffering it is willing to provide. Doesn't that imply that a
> > well-behaved web application would be forced to check for exceptions
> > from all send() invocations, since there's no way to know a priori
> > whether limits imposed by an application via its app-level protocol
> > would be sufficient to stay under a given user-agent's internal limits?
>
> Without the recent changes, yes.
>
>
> > Even worse, to be broadly deployable the app-level protocol would have
> > to enforce the lowest-common-denominator buffering limit, which would
> > inhibit throughput on platforms that support higher buffers. In
> > practice, I suspect most implementations would adopt a "just blast out
> > as much data as possible until the system throws an exception, then set
> > a timer to retry the send in 100ms" approach. But perhaps that's your
> > intention? If so, then I'd suggest changing the API to just have a
> > "canWrite" notification like other async socket APIs provide (or
> > something similar) to avoid the clunky catch-and-retry idiom.
>
> The attribute now lets you just wait until the buffer is empty, which is
> more or less equivalent, I think.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >
> > I think even unlimited buffering needs to be combined with at least a
> > hint to the WebSocket client to back off the send rate, because it's
> > possible to send so much data that it exceeds the available address
> > space, for example when uploading a very large file piece by piece, or
> > when sending a live media stream that requires more bandwidth than the
> > connection can deliver. In the first case, it is possible, though highly
> > undesirable, to spool the data to be sent to disk; in the latter case,
> > doing that would just inevitably fill the disk. Obviously we need more
> > web platform capabilities to make such use cases a reality, but they are
> > foreseeable and we should deal with them in some reasonable way.
>
> Both the lice stream and the file case are actually far easier for us to
> deal with, as noted above, than just lots of generated text data.
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> >
> > Why not just allow unlimited buffering, but also provide an API to query
> > how much data is currently buffered (approximate only, so it would be OK
> > to just return the size of data buffered in user space)?
> >
> > Then applications that care and can adapt can do so. But most
> > applications will not need to. The problem of partial writes being
> > incorrectly handled is pernicious and I definitely think partial writes
> > should not be exposed to applications.
>
> That's what I've done.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Michael Nordman wrote:
> >
> > The proposed websocket interface is too dumbed down. The caller doesn't
> > know what the impl is doing, and the impl doesn't know what the caller
> > is trying to do. As a consequence, there is no "reasonable" action that
> > either can take when buffers start overflowing. Typically, the network
> > layer provides sufficient status info to its caller that, allowing the
> > higher level code to do something reasonable in light of how the network
> > layer is performing. That kind of status info is simply missing from the
> > websocket interface. I think its possible to add to the interface
> > features that would facilitate more demanding uses cases without
> > complicating the simple use cases. I think that would be an excellent
> > goal for this API.
>
> Do the minimal new additions address this to your satisfaction?
The hints about future additions have, in particular support for 'streams'.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Drew Wilson wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest that the solution to this situation is an appropriate
> > application-level protocol (i.e. acks) to allow the application to have
> > no more than (say) 1MB of data outstanding.
> >
> > I'm just afraid that we're burdening the API to handle degenerative
> > cases that the vast majority of users won't encounter. Specifying in the
> > API that any arbitrary send() invocation could throw some kind of "retry
> > exception" or return some kind of error code is really really
> > cumbersome.
>
> I agree that we aren't talking about a particularly common case.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090728/f54ff4ca/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 17:11:19 UTC