- From: Køi¹tof ®elechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:03:12 +0200
- To: '"Martin J. Dürst"' <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: "'Jamie Lokier'" <jamie@shareable.org>, <uri-review@ietf.org>, <hybi@ietf.org>, <uri@w3.org>, "'David Booth'" <david@dbooth.org>
Web Sockets is a transmission protocol, intended as a substitute for TCP/IP where it is unavailable by policy. (Of course, it is a TCP/IP overlay, so TCP/IP must be technically available.) TCP/IP is a transmission protocol and it is useless without a communication protocol. And so is Web Sockets. I think the idea to use Web Sockets on the server is void; the server can use TCP/IP at will. Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:55 AM To: Kristof Zelechovski Cc: 'Jamie Lokier'; uri-review@ietf.org; hybi@ietf.org; uri@w3.org; 'David Booth' Subject: Re: [hybi] [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes Sorry to be very late with this. On 2009/08/12 19:15, Kristof Zelechovski wrote: > 1. Encouraging the user to enter a Web Sockets URL does not make sense if > cross-domain connections are not allowed, which I hope will be the case (the > draft specification [1] does not contain security considerations). Could it be that the URI/IRI entered is sent to a server, where there are no cross-domain restrictions? > 2. While we are at it, a Web Sockets connection is useless without knowing > the protocol, and the protocol to be used is not contained within the URL. > That means a ws URL is not self-contained and thus useless as a stand-alone > locator. My understanding is that there is a Web Sockets protocol. Regards, Martin. -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 08:17:37 UTC