--- On Tue, 5/1/10, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [BOSH] default port? > To: "Bidirectional Streams Over Synchronous HTTP" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, 5 January, 2010, 9:47 PM > On 12/30/09 8:35 AM, Mridul > Muralidharan wrote: > > Regarding port : Shouldn't this not be best left to > deployment ? BOSH > > is essentially riding on top of http - and so the IANA > registeration > > would be applicable to http and not BOSH, right ? > > Well, port 5280 is registered now. :) But it applies to > BOSH uses of > HTTP, not HTTP itself. Not everything needs to go over port > 80 (or 443) > and IETF people are working to discourage that these days. Yep, I saw in the other list that I was too late in responding to this :-) > > > It could (would in > > some deployment bundles) typically be colocated with a > bunch of other > > webapps - which would be http apps. > > It could, but typically it isn't. Registering the port > doesn't mean you > can't use any other port, naturally (the same as for XMPP > over TCP). Usually, same origin client side constraints apply : so the bosh client artifacts would anyway need to be served off that port - making it a 'full fledged' http instance. As opposed to services on top of http (rest, soap, etc) - which is where ietf tries to split (iirc), things are slightly more involved in this case probably. Regards, Mridul > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
