On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> As an alternative, why not:
>
> 1) specify a new port for "normal" WebSocket operation, and
> 2) specify that if there's a proxy configured, ask the proxy to CONNECT to
> your new port, and
> 3) specify that if #2 fails, they can CONNECT to 443 and ask for an Upgrade to
> WebSockets in the first HTTP request.
We don't want to ever have a spec-mandated switch from port to port (since
that implies an origin change), but basically, that's what the spec
currently says, except it requires the script to detect the failure at #2
and requires the script to explicitly try again on port 443. (And except
that the Upgrade has to be precisely constrained, not arbitrary HTTP, so
that we never get to a situation where the client thinks it has done an
upgrade but really the other side was tricked into sending the right bytes
for that, letting the script speak to a poor unsuspecting server that
didn't intentionally opt in.)
-- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Thu Jul 16 2009 - 02:28:53 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jul 16 2009 - 12:00:05 MDT