[whatwg] BWTP for WebSocket transfer protocol

Jonas Sicking jonas at sicking.cc
Tue Aug 11 18:45:21 PDT 2009

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Greg Wilkins<gregw at mortbay.com> wrote:
> Wellington Fernando de Macedo wrote:
>>> "message segmentation" (...) aren't much important in
>>> bidirectional-communication.
>> No. I'm wrong.  Because of virtual connections "message segmentation" is
>> necessary.
>> I think WS could support these features (like they are specified in the
>> BTWP proposal) through its websocket-protocol header. In such a way the
>> WS could work with both protocols.
> Wellington,
> I too agree that the ws protocol as proposed could be improved to support
> some of the key features that are being discussed here.   I actually
> started this by proposing some such extensions to the ws protocol.
> However, I have reservations about creating an entire protocol that
> will effect servers, proxies gateways and browsers on the basis of
> a single JavaScript API.
> I think the protocol for bidirectional communication over the
> internet should be considered and designed with uses other than
> just the js API.    There are many other uses for bidirectional
> communication over the web that will bypass firewalls.

Can you suggest changes to the WS protocol that would make it a better
general-purpose protocol? You've suggested multiplexing, segmentation,
per-frame mime-type and per-frame meta-data so far. Is there anything
else that is needed? It would also be good to know what use cases you
have in mind for all of these features in order to evaluate them.

/ Jonas

More information about the whatwg mailing list