[whatwg] Feature requests in WebSocket (Was: BWTP for, WebSocket transfer protocol)

Greg Wilkins gregw at mortbay.com
Sat Sep 5 04:22:43 PDT 2009

WenboZhu wrote:
> While the concerns on the server-side are overstated, the analogy to http is
> also questionable ... The current protocol, being a *scoket* layer protocol,
> is in principle different than http, which is strictly a L7 RPC protocol.


TCP/IP does not map well to OSI layer model.

In the TCP/IP model, a socket is for process to process to process
communication.    In this model the browser is a process and the
server is a process.

To route communication from a component within a process (eg a widget,
frame or tab) to a component within the other process (eg a servlet,
session, etc) is the job of the application layer protocols (FTP,

Websocket is an application level protocol, so it is entirely
consistent to expect it to be able to route/multiplex the
communication needs of components within the browser or server.

In fact, I would go as far to say, that to use separate TCP/IP
connections to route between the private application specific
components within the browser/server is an abuse of the protocol.
It is is co-opting the resources of the network layer to maintain
and track private application state.

> As much as it seems complicated/risky for the script to implement its own
> (adhoc) multiplexing, any built-in multiplexing protocol (as a L7 concern)
> could also limit future applications/frameworks that we are yet to find out.

In the history of HTTP, are they any examples were the support
for multiplexing has limited it's application to new applications/frameworks?


More information about the whatwg mailing list