WebSockets -- only TCP?
Hello, I would like to comment on the current (20120313) WebSockets specification. The text sounds to me like it implicitly assumes that all protocols are run over TCP. It could be said that the choice of URL makes it sufficiently general to include UDP (and possibly SCTP), but the usage of terms like connecting sends a hint to implementers that support of TCP would suffice. If the intention is to create a TCP-only WebSocket, then I think this should be made explicit. And if UDP would also be supported, then a remark around connection states that some apply only to connection-oriented URL protocols would send a clearer message to implementers. I do think UDP is too important to discard from WebSockets; among the things we can do with current technology (Flash or Java) is a softphone running in a browser; in a TCP-only HTML5 environment with deprecated support for these technologies such options would have no standing ground. I hope this is helpful feedback. Best wishes, Rick van Rein OpenFortress
Re: WebSockets -- only TCP?
RFC 6455 defines WSP as a TCP protocol [1] [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-1.5 at present the WebSocket API is nothing more than a thin layer over WSP, and references WSP for all protocol bindings; there is no discarding of UDP involved; it simply is/was not a requirement driving WSP; if someone defines a new flavor of WSP in the future based on UDP, e.g., WSPU, then the WebSocket API could be updated to make reference to it; in conclusion, I don't see any cause to change the WebSocket API draft to explicitly suggest use of an alternative protocol (to WSP) since none exists at this time; On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Rick van Rein r...@openfortress.nl wrote: Hello, I would like to comment on the current (20120313) WebSockets specification. The text sounds to me like it implicitly assumes that all protocols are run over TCP. It could be said that the choice of URL makes it sufficiently general to include UDP (and possibly SCTP), but the usage of terms like connecting sends a hint to implementers that support of TCP would suffice. If the intention is to create a TCP-only WebSocket, then I think this should be made explicit. And if UDP would also be supported, then a remark around connection states that some apply only to connection-oriented URL protocols would send a clearer message to implementers. I do think UDP is too important to discard from WebSockets; among the things we can do with current technology (Flash or Java) is a softphone running in a browser; in a TCP-only HTML5 environment with deprecated support for these technologies such options would have no standing ground. I hope this is helpful feedback. Best wishes, Rick van Rein OpenFortress
Re: WebSockets -- only TCP?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:28:54 +0100, Rick van Rein r...@openfortress.nl wrote: Hello, I would like to comment on the current (20120313) WebSockets specification. The text sounds to me like it implicitly assumes that all protocols are run over TCP. It could be said that the choice of URL makes it sufficiently general to include UDP (and possibly SCTP), but the usage of terms like connecting sends a hint to implementers that support of TCP would suffice. If the intention is to create a TCP-only WebSocket, then I think this should be made explicit. And if UDP would also be supported, then a remark around connection states that some apply only to connection-oriented URL protocols would send a clearer message to implementers. I do think UDP is too important to discard from WebSockets; among the things we can do with current technology (Flash or Java) is a softphone running in a browser; in a TCP-only HTML5 environment with deprecated support for these technologies such options would have no standing ground. See PeerConnection in http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html I hope this is helpful feedback. Best wishes, Rick van Rein OpenFortress -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
