Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 255A118F73 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 52804 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2015 21:41:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 52732 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2015 21:41:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 52722 invoked by uid 99); 10 Dec 2015 21:41:47 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:41:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 9F8AAC08BA for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:41:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ipzE6Jqyt0aj for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:41:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com [209.85.220.48]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id E7B36265EC for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:41:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pabur14 with SMTP id ur14so53762477pab.0 for ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:41:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gai/3dkxK5vtnK9MoQftFTfbLE2h7WOQtgvZoJotkRE=; b=B0Iy2pMWkxXkdh1RN0kTG5Tq0s7w929zb2VI0PTqE+4MksjhLRZVvdZ5GgnInAmnP7 GktfbLr8qVdgyy+tGFrFVPXb/O9DX8NZWGEY5fPFm6eRbIYClKXuY8piI0hLqvnRIySU p8erAzCNpau+KRFQKDNsAAE9c9eRhq5yYYk12pQNe2PwyaCewC9zQuV8fB7IyvkZgQqZ +ndOMd1Z05z/39uvIxGzC0ORfGSWo8XhPpD1BixUP8WKxokPph7hnjvuLssIViyt4Z5o rcmiATLn8O3QH3WWcI4PuAUmmPcZDEVTKNB0TvG2m8V5r1FK2f79AYu1AuMFWSzJnkl/ L/Hw== X-Received: by 10.66.138.101 with SMTP id qp5mr19900026pab.113.1449783699030; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:41:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (50-39-117-165.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.39.117.165]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q23sm20466064pfi.34.2015.12.10.13.41.37 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:41:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Upgrade Summary To: dev@httpd.apache.org References: <56660896.c74fc20a.15f56.0ebd@mx.google.com> <56660B43.2060507@gmail.com> <6B13DF2B-0586-42BB-B62F-59A7638B697D@greenbytes.de> <13FE9E7F-9620-4BF9-8EA4-57A6314D66BF@greenbytes.de> <9CCEFD7E-9ED3-4ED1-8F58-2134DD5310F9@gbiv.com> <566887B5.2080705@gmail.com> <5668CC4F.109@gmail.com> <5668EFDB.1050900@gmail.com> From: Jacob Champion Message-ID: <5669F191.5060800@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:41:37 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 12/10/2015 02:45 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: > Websockets are different… and in some ways not really an upgrade of the > connection… more like a hostile takeover with a final operation to a target Ha! Yes -- although from the point of view of HTTP/1.1, all successful upgrades are hostile takeovers, no? But a failure to upgrade is more of a problem for a WebSocket client than a pure-HTTP client. > More like a CONNECT request to a proxy… Heh, interesting that you mention that. Proxy and cache behavior is, IIRC, the motivation for many of the strange-looking design decisions in the WebSocket protocol... --Jacob