From nobody Mon May 2 01:36:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B586E12D146 for ; Mon, 2 May 2016 01:36:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PtkZ8yQaEHsJ for ; Mon, 2 May 2016 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JPN01-TY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ty1jpn01on0090.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.93.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD2D112D142 for ; Mon, 2 May 2016 01:36:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=itaoyama.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-it-aoyama-ac-jp; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=XwweK5nK0YNnWv+blt3+q6wmR8Dvb8efvOMAxINJ8Sg=; b=Ki8tnxCBckbrxFzwC4yiWqapVrjgmq50j+CW0ywSmk+6kFv5+xgpW3xEAG3YHRneEJxtnKsV/ZMiE7WhAaZrwFwJUumul4V0bmLR5sGcCHrr3WWH29FNuFLvH8aToHoht8ZlMIoXVE/S08keRMa2l+XmAjk9aF1sCmADIXjL2Uo= Authentication-Results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=it.aoyama.ac.jp; Received: from [133.2.210.64] (133.2.210.64) by OSXPR01MB0919.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.167.148.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.485.9; Mon, 2 May 2016 08:36:25 +0000 To: Scott Morgan , References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University Message-ID: <8c6c8096-9b52-396c-0e11-e1551af5a4d5@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:36:23 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [133.2.210.64] X-ClientProxiedBy: KAWPR01CA0047.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.165.48.157) To OSXPR01MB0919.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.167.148.149) X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: e3acc458-d6ee-4d4c-9094-08d37264d91a X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; OSXPR01MB0919; 2:TRH0D78SZxikOqKH/38qgR3TCwS74xPXAvei31EoKEw9MtrvGkHp6aJrP+RFkNSaD378Py3AMhIFKlDpPAzuVxdHRx3ZUp7YL5aMDMHCplWuBhTZqAcqF0k0HPT1ePIygKt/VF1X/7ArN/i5eXW/Ax25vj5sx357ZO9EIx6WmZGDwPd8s2HtYhIpowg+VT1p; 3:UsZedpy5vYd6PySGIJ0nZ+mAiJRcZZv5nWOa2gorBibtHciAEa3uiE0qbcirVVJEed+lRNZ3xBDijP1wuNRMLe8mi2ZhgfmlWRksfDq1PiLyb1NvAiQT0OOdwXG4DAtT; 25:k2f6MU+OCAqb7Dq0pLuKv49p04SflDFtuhTCNzB4+0uuFCXXg6M+YerUI5Ww4nMuVF6l3S6wI/ye9fMVOVIIKafEp3N2GZi0ZJYQgV7KfK+wpop4rRtuRQWLmAkdXBUxlin+LZz1bVXtZto+UhoeS3LxRLRDgtUcm+aRmNJ29ZcRC+so09JPE/SwlvxuLOsL8JCRgU69tm4X4FUz55fDOcrYDSQxRDa6njs4URTuHkYIeO9u98p35f/udWMcPSTYOoWaA6sOsuUkrRzz+1BckjobnC8J3lEjFWXF3NrZkuj1TqKbT86ELePNMNjwRlHC1xQs3pTI/mNvqJAXKOaLCLDe7BILhWGZMUsnH4LC53mKg3vhFJEyRdhQnEqlWXIke0bURWmG+0bFYqhpzL+NGC7d4H+PLkd5xoqsyANIDloGCdsvJJ7ZqKp1iCDTmWGr X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:OSXPR01MB0919; X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(9101521092)(6040130)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041072)(6043046)(6042046); SRVR:OSXPR01MB0919; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:OSXPR01MB0919; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; OSXPR01MB0919; 4:viK0d/joIuNUuUX4BuekwJrrl3a65NDvsNlVLThiVtlXvfez/PxnaeKA33gNr6N5MkUj9Q9cb1xHuuoYOxVO/2mOcnGC76ul8ImLF+egLb6eDl5HOvhYKnmMltwyHvlNr6R8smBOvkCjjifKBfF83Oflro8eFR+8vP/xODGb8yXl+cA0b74b2AlH6IYd8qihoN2ZTfmfp4Hkd1dn7yTfsU98Zchzo45y0/bobag42zNMMR4fHJN0PaHqrxU08QyQXfhTInfbUUWTb+MXKIfbHrsYfPoDGHP68RnzTrLB+Q2tHd0MboUwvbkbh1h5phHdo1Iio15PX5NoaYQHx8ptLtt99EhIcRKslxdBuigPXfAjPobkvvaWQv5uQIA5Ecb2SGQh7KUYwMu1oW4CJPjPIX59qxv9L+aSgDakQ0v/zgcmv5U6tIEDLanc2dEd0hc/clKFtcqzoA1LGfFcY1DT/A== X-Forefront-PRVS: 0930AAFAD9 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4630300001)(6049001)(6009001)(24454002)(51694002)(53754006)(77096005)(3846002)(6116002)(31686004)(586003)(1096002)(2950100001)(42186005)(23676002)(66066001)(5001770100001)(47776003)(4001350100001)(65806001)(230700001)(65956001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(74482002)(50466002)(92566002)(5008740100001)(33646002)(31696002)(5004730100002)(54356999)(2906002)(189998001)(15975445007)(81166005)(50986999)(76176999)(107886002)(86362001)(83506001)(65826006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:OSXPR01MB0919; H:[133.2.210.64]; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: =?utf-8?B?MTtPU1hQUjAxTUIwOTE5OzIzOktNRmExSTE3azZvM3oySTc3UmtnM09GYnlD?= =?utf-8?B?UDkyUkxzTVVTZUJYRmxEYldSUGUrTWZSL1VkbExSSXpGLzEyRHYvMlJQekdF?= =?utf-8?B?b1BpbW5LNHVUZUJ1LzYxSWE5S1BJWjFVQUR1alA1MDBsVDRjMTlKdEVMWC84?= =?utf-8?B?M094MkNBYnVEUHVkYUo3dTU2Z2wzRzVvQ3NTVnNzVzkzQnJWNnlSMHRsRk9C?= =?utf-8?B?QktlWmFFYUFWZFpBTDlGWEhJOGN2NHMwY3hDVkVjb2xVSmJmZmczNmZjY2Nt?= =?utf-8?B?UTFBNWdXc080andIaitOdFpyTG9GaWV5UU5Pdk1vZkJOcmFiVFYxUk9UeDFK?= =?utf-8?B?aTFzeW1QWGhuSXZUQWl5MiswTzlPd1lXdTJrMzZwOEhBV2pRREFSd0poTklI?= =?utf-8?B?ck5yQlRGeEJ5Z0hXenhhZnBVdDNxQjBROEllWTF4cTNYODRVTUg3aWdTc2Ni?= =?utf-8?B?ekp6Wi9OdzRQSW5ycmlCZ0FoZkZ6dVpnL1BOaGt5Q0lScTVmZjIyUXZmbm1M?= =?utf-8?B?YTFBc0VDeTY0cUpNQ2cwL3h0N1V5Y1VDTWhYU2dhcm1lMlBCczFHOEYzRkhX?= =?utf-8?B?WHVNODZhc1owT3oySUtQSzF2MTErQ3UwM3ZHUnR6aTQ3UVdFYjlYa21JVVlX?= =?utf-8?B?cHd5MzVTcXdsbFlQMWpHZ0dBZHRBUGNhWGxkdVQ4Q0RQcTJvTTRTVUxOTG53?= =?utf-8?B?cHhsaHp6NFJsaWxUMDNVUXV0dldSdzN2VzhqY0phRUk4ZGVSZnVzclBGcEZs?= =?utf-8?B?VEs3ZGpNWUtKclFSWDVtYkF0QjlHRnhsa0gzY0dSeTh1Rnl5Qm5JeTVoak5D?= =?utf-8?B?eWoxbDRyVnhRd3Fhd2hJRUxyUDh2eExEOGN0YSs3dlRuZVJVNzNJZnE5L2Z2?= =?utf-8?B?TjBYUWhVbUtYT3RibWJOdEE5bUZyZjlvVng1cTNlcEhMYlRDeUMzclNuQUhE?= =?utf-8?B?WW1OZEM5Uk9Yd0p1TWVYQnlPRTFJWTd0MzFCcWZQSVhXOW8xc0JJZHVWWUc2?= =?utf-8?B?VTVLQnE0b1BZSll3Vm13QnlDZUMyaldtWmxCZ3NpNDJkSW5mQlV5NVVvYlho?= =?utf-8?B?c3dDR0VUYnNlRm84UlNaaWc1bWVJbVNKYTV1M0FwYUJiOFFmalN2SkJxUzBt?= =?utf-8?B?RE1wa0NrZFBkc1FWMTFqUVEwME56d1lnY1hpL1ZuQ3E1emZrYmc4elMzWFRY?= =?utf-8?B?a0lPT1ByR1AzbUI4VU5vaE1jRitUM0pLZml6NFRFSGRoMGQ5cUx3U0l4bkFv?= =?utf-8?B?cHhhWjdSckVFMFpjdUlHTER3aWF0M2V3OHRvaHRRRUJvdU16alpOaWloZzRB?= =?utf-8?B?NGVkcmExT09GZUFuMzE5YzRPRTdpZytFNDB3K1dvZ2gyaVVGVjVDcnFtMHBV?= =?utf-8?B?cXlxRDF0UXJqb0t4VGU4TnU0MUhUWkpUUU5VT29OTFR6ZDZBb0FPYzdBQmF2?= =?utf-8?B?WkFyZVFWT25xWlNQRll0TllsSkJFV2x6ZW5meFUra05WVjRZeVVEVng2bENp?= =?utf-8?Q?VLMTJTuQwPNQr7I04rBVK3oyc=3D?= X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1; OSXPR01MB0919; 5:K4n9bAqMbgPhVUtHoSPkUTftEGj4cBHjmfnNErWHP43/d+qvOJLiV5Bj8onMpzDrI9hmlDwvOWAtphz+AT4k3DXDLMc0rXZqxID3DfN53c4jchdcVaIsk+kWHphr3qHkZ7ZZcJDi+WOaqkwL5XR/YA==; 24:SqvJ7U9jTEKgsGEXa9m2kT1ZVcNchiZQc3poDNbMR0bDe/4pfDxYTfenMi5Kw+MepvmIG4ieDY/7wb4ynAUJm7WWU07GTj/Gnw+1hfog8CA=; 7:eys0V4NF+q2kONbtIs7d2Y98YrTA25CsDaZErjzZvCVXjgqQAnUjntxZqP9LAJs4ctQv5zT7bHwabegaqG570e4cRvBX8/QuZg8RnvrnvWwXR6aX73qacPP6agDGHBZUFEvWwhkcq13TsCs6u0bVoGl7VfSH2Qlqthx+1B9BpZy0eYHtg8mepgYziGUfYEjX SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23 SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM X-OriginatorOrg: it.aoyama.ac.jp X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2016 08:36:25.3127 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: OSXPR01MB0919 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hybi] Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to WebSockets X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 08:36:32 -0000 Hello Scott, On 2016/04/29 04:15, Scott Morgan wrote: > Hi All, > > I just wanted to point out that there is not always a hierarchy between > protocols. That's a valid point, at least in theory. > For example the protocol I am working on ASBP (Asynchronous > Services Bus Protocol) is intended to be layered on top of any of; > > WebSockets > > Http/2 > > Http 1.1 > > Http 1.0 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adligo-hybi-asbp/?include_text=1 > > > In the ASBP case I would guess that I should register ASBP as a WebSocket > sub protocol, as well as a sub protocol for all of the above protocols. There's no registry for protocols over HTTP. My understanding is that this is essentially because the protocol/architecture (as explained e.g. by REST) of HTTP is essentially fixed, although of course it's always possible to find ways to bend or tweak it. Also, I don't think it makes sense to have different mappings for HTTP 1.1 and 1.0. The same most probably applies for 1.1 and 2.0, because they are supposed to be semantically identical. On the other hand, as far as I understand, the WebSockets sub protocol registry was created because WebSockets is not much more than TCP for the Web (the main difference to TCP being the message concept). So it looked prudent to create a registry to reduce the possibility of confusion one layer higher up. However, because WebSockets is usually used between two consenting parties (the browser which downloaded a Web page from a server, and that server), the Websockets Sub-Protocol Registry has been rather underutilized, and there are many usages of WebSockets without any explicit subprotocol. Regards, Martin. > On the other hand perhaps the title 'Websockets Sub-Protocol Registry' > should be changed to 'Protocols Supported Over WebSockets' in order to > facilitate clarity. > > > Cheers, > > Scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > hybi mailing list > hybi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi > From nobody Tue May 3 21:25:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C78012D8B0 for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kUTmnx6Jq0zg for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com (mail-ig0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BBEC12D5CF for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-x231.google.com with SMTP id s8so38327473ign.0 for ; Tue, 03 May 2016 21:25:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=v8iBLh+2HXMlCw3C8DKM9Y4YisWxLYqO7etO2Vz4Ijs=; b=b5zlwBnhY5BNz3DvyDkSHhsTClTF3M65RntLacb3bVPorjmpeyDJhvxgZ9kXQooq7I h+VIRiQbzpDsSbFLuHevbnljtbNvM0q/9cR0J3VL8OOha4kvZvT4RL0zqnINtXAQZ+an LvDsxo4HinHOgsen4EnCyFmEtF26+H4Jy4ti6A3VZYSCjytybLUOYoPxAGPdL2KJAl20 yNqHAMson8mGmvU8iLaZmbZxTzMP1lIJLQEV86X3NllaCXJkn6jznOMxNsHpI7g9BUWq e3SSnoIqMAgWOgEhZACmfO1+ZKzicXGEXaBoH/8oe1il5Q+ZNBtQUZpwMgc8B7Dad98e fGOA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=v8iBLh+2HXMlCw3C8DKM9Y4YisWxLYqO7etO2Vz4Ijs=; b=CWb2HxchjEbyjtVmUq8hj14v8vGwMTxsrEdYzloVyvEtQalEvXM7DJ9fAhXBwClmV3 D9QHHrO0wzqzrFmDgPZ5PQ3UzNweCV5reK38UJcCLF/pRv+qmPryaQoxCzP8/qfUz4nz /VVnrsJ6KUiu2QDWNj/mQHVgohvxXK8IAw5bDkkqGF7PwrcZtMNwzrxx4ZB1fUlRIkGl sE26+/ItfwwfmuP7+xyDpYvXGWLE6UiGWcvf8Nsuq9ybY6i5b9OR2o03U+Gx6sf7oSeY 1YJTEiBtMuPNTJtAvN0urRKXY14dKyqAOH57h6Aclvn/XKUGAudgHjxkRM+8MQZZyXRy g9zg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVOYZLFXImsS2TORNaVjHbzz13RDXOEH/Zx+ZpVPp9Xs50vQ27Vlfe2jZkPP0JE/QwBob+iUPOw5y3/+A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.30.73 with SMTP id q9mr32988533igh.77.1462335951354; Tue, 03 May 2016 21:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.79.39.80 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2016 21:25:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:25:51 -0500 Message-ID: From: Scott Morgan To: hybi@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc0a84ec57ff0531fc9e20 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [hybi] hybi Digest, Vol 80, Issue 1 X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 04:25:54 -0000 --047d7bdc0a84ec57ff0531fc9e20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Martin, Just to respond to your comment; > Also, I don't think it makes sense to have different mappings for HTTP > 1.1 and 1.0. The same most probably applies for 1.1 and 2.0, because > they are supposed to be semantically identical. The main reason I went into detail in ASBP on various HTTP protocols was the ability to send multiple frames over a connection in HTTP/2 (like you can over a WebSocket), which can't be done in HTTP 1.0 or 1.1. Also, I do think a 'Registry of Protocols Supported Over X' is a good idea for both WebSockets, HTTP as well as other base protocols. It gives the competing protocols a level playing field / arena for discussion about their respective pros and cons. In addition it provides a list of available protocols that could be chosen from. Regards, Scott On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:00 PM, wrote: > Send hybi mailing list submissions to > hybi@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > hybi-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > hybi-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of hybi digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to > WebSockets (Martin J. D?rst) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:36:23 +0900 > From: Martin J. D?rst > To: Scott Morgan , > Subject: Re: [hybi] Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to > WebSockets > Message-ID: <8c6c8096-9b52-396c-0e11-e1551af5a4d5@it.aoyama.ac.jp> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed > > Hello Scott, > > On 2016/04/29 04:15, Scott Morgan wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I just wanted to point out that there is not always a hierarchy between > > protocols. > > That's a valid point, at least in theory. > > > For example the protocol I am working on ASBP (Asynchronous > > Services Bus Protocol) is intended to be layered on top of any of; > > > > WebSockets > > > > Http/2 > > > > Http 1.1 > > > > Http 1.0 > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adligo-hybi-asbp/?include_text=1 > > > > > > In the ASBP case I would guess that I should register ASBP as a WebSocket > > sub protocol, as well as a sub protocol for all of the above protocols. > > There's no registry for protocols over HTTP. My understanding is that > this is essentially because the protocol/architecture (as explained e.g. > by REST) of HTTP is essentially fixed, although of course it's always > possible to find ways to bend or tweak it. > > Also, I don't think it makes sense to have different mappings for HTTP > 1.1 and 1.0. The same most probably applies for 1.1 and 2.0, because > they are supposed to be semantically identical. > > > On the other hand, as far as I understand, the WebSockets sub protocol > registry was created because WebSockets is not much more than TCP for > the Web (the main difference to TCP being the message concept). So it > looked prudent to create a registry to reduce the possibility of > confusion one layer higher up. > > However, because WebSockets is usually used between two consenting > parties (the browser which downloaded a Web page from a server, and that > server), the Websockets Sub-Protocol Registry has been rather > underutilized, and there are many usages of WebSockets without any > explicit subprotocol. > > Regards, Martin. > > > On the other hand perhaps the title 'Websockets Sub-Protocol Registry' > > should be changed to 'Protocols Supported Over WebSockets' in order to > > facilitate clarity. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hybi mailing list > > hybi@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > hybi mailing list > hybi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi > > > ------------------------------ > > End of hybi Digest, Vol 80, Issue 1 > *********************************** > --047d7bdc0a84ec57ff0531fc9e20 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Martin,

=C2=A0 Just to respond to yo= ur comment;

> =C2=A0Also, I don't think it makes sense to have different mappings for= HTTP
> 1.1 and 1.0. The sa= me most probably applies for 1.1 and 2.0, because
> they are supposed to be s= emantically identical.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0The main reason= I went into detail in ASBP on various HTTP protocols
was the ability to send multiple frames over a= connection in HTTP/2 (like you
can over a WebSocket), which can't be done in HTTP 1.0 or 1.1. = =C2=A0

<= div>=C2=A0 Also, I do think a '= Registry of=C2=A0Protocols Supported Over X' is a good idea for
both WebSockets, HTTP as well as other base protocols. =C2=A0<= span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">It gives the competing=C2=A0
protocols a level playing=C2=A0<= span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">field / arena for discussion about their re= spective pros
and cons. = =C2=A0 In addition it provides a list of available protocols that=C2=A0
could be chosen from.=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0
Regards,
Scott=C2=A0

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:00 PM, <= hybi-request@ietf.org> wrote:
Send hybi mailing list submissions to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hybi@ietf.org<= /a>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l= istinfo/hybi
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hybi-r= equest@ietf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 hybi-own= er@ietf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of hybi digest..."


Today's Topics:

=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Re: Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 WebSockets (Martin J. D?rst)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:36:23 +0900
From: Martin J. D?rst <duerst@= it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>, <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Sub-Registry Protocols that are not exclusive to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 WebSockets
Message-ID: <8c6c8096-9b52-396c-0e11-e1551af5a4d5@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"; format=3Dflowed

Hello Scott,

On 2016/04/29 04:15, Scott Morgan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I just wanted to point out that there is not always a hierarchy betwee= n
> protocols.

That's a valid point, at least in theory.

> For example the protocol I am working on ASBP (Asynchronous
> Services Bus Protocol) is intended to be layered on top of any of;
>
> WebSockets
>
> Http/2
>
> Http 1.1
>
> Http 1.0
>
> https://datatracker.ie= tf.org/doc/draft-adligo-hybi-asbp/?include_text=3D1
>
>
> In the ASBP case I would guess that I should register ASBP as a WebSoc= ket
> sub protocol, as well as a sub protocol for all of the above protocols= .

There's no registry for protocols over HTTP. My understanding is that this is essentially because the protocol/architecture (as explained e.g. by REST) of HTTP is essentially fixed, although of course it's always possible to find ways to bend or tweak it.

Also, I don't think it makes sense to have different mappings for HTTP<= br> 1.1 and 1.0. The same most probably applies for 1.1 and 2.0, because
they are supposed to be semantically identical.


On the other hand, as far as I understand, the WebSockets sub protocol
registry was created because WebSockets is not much more than TCP for
the Web (the main difference to TCP being the message concept). So it
looked prudent to create a registry to reduce the possibility of
confusion one layer higher up.

However, because WebSockets is usually used between two consenting
parties (the browser which downloaded a Web page from a server, and that server), the Websockets Sub-Protocol Registry has been rather
underutilized, and there are many usages of WebSockets without any
explicit subprotocol.

Regards,=C2=A0 =C2=A0Martin.

> On the other hand perhaps the title 'Websockets Sub-Protocol Regis= try'
> should be changed to 'Protocols Supported Over WebSockets' in = order to
> facilitate clarity.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
hybi mailing list
hybi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi


------------------------------

End of hybi Digest, Vol 80, Issue 1
***********************************

--047d7bdc0a84ec57ff0531fc9e20--