On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Greg Wilkins wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > I disagree that the current handshake isn't like HTTP enough, though. > > The request is fully HTTP-compliant. What value would there be in > > relaxing the rules on what WebSocket clients should send in the > > request? I don't understand the real-world case you are concerned > > about. > > What about a load balancer in front of the server that inserts a cookie > or X-Forwarded-For header into all HTTP requests that it forwards. > > This will probably be harmless with regards to the subsequent WS > connection, but it will break the handshake so there will not be a > subsequent WS connection. How do such load balancers handle pipelining? If they support them, then that means they are almost certainly incompatible with WebSocket, as far as I can tell, and we would _want_ the connection to fail. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.