-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greg Wilkins wrote: > > + Because of it's similarity to HTTP, it is intended that existing > HTTP clients, servers and intermediaries will be able to be > minimally updated to support this protocol. This will not require > entirely new protocol libraries to be developed. Existing > development and analysis tools will also be able to be easily > updated, plus the protocol is mostly human readable. Maybe I missing something about this in discussions, but I thought one of the core ideas of WebSockets was to use CONNECT to tunnel through existing proxies. Is there hope that BWTP would somehow be properly handled by existing intermediaries, or would it require an update to proxies? It certainly seems that if it is possible to build the protocol such that it will work over existing proxies, that would be greatly preferable. If this won't work across in current proxied environments, uptake will be much slower (if at all), won't it? - -- Kris Zyp SitePen (503) 806-1841 http://sitepen.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoxE9YACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAwxQACgrEphCoLbrdic89wlmXmVOidh P14AoKipXqcTqol4KOMYqYgU+ECNf43c =SN7W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.