Re: See-other-uri and insecure web sockets
Matt Miller <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.xmpp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 3/5/14, 9:29 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> >>> Well, you need to do *something* if someone tries to connect to >>> <ws://websocketserver.example/xmpp-bind>, but I guess >>> responding with 301 or 404 to the HTTP handshake, prior to >>> protocol handover, would be better than switching to xmpp and >>> then using see-other-uri. >> >> Yes, I think that's the better approach - the earlier the >> better. > > Does that mean we don't need see-other-uri at all? > _______________________________________________ xmpp mailing list > [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > There are (and will be) cases where a redirect cannot be done until after the XMPP-over-Websocket handshake is started (well after an HTTP redirect is possible). We still need this. - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < [email protected] > Cisco Systems, Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTFv4eAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO16GIIAIFnyroLUbZpRIq5oi+hFwHZ 2NSMTIksa+PIHl8DXcTb0dVsBeKTUpUN9vHMu3U3iO5yDAP9we4M1uKbsXZE6RoD 8w51z0AMrcKueYL9XvtC+sMm1eJVauQid4Vy7JxqgFzq5eTgLy5dsj1nCzssKjVQ wHZnXGAvaZwGI4W3010RZ7SVEbLBzLwkIPGslZTnzLCX462yJbl+4gvr9UOx7GKG /R/E/zb53vBkQIkmiUMh7CgfBcmi0QCd1p0hzF+dnozUYp0zHJpYyOH0LiiJn0DI F1/NU0vE1uQ5GN7NZWNauMoiOIOlvqwcRDqAMswH0uUgmYiSMT/6YESpDROTOJ4= =NMXg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----