URLs could be used with a generalized protocol. The client would specify the URL scheme, port and an arbitrary name and the server would generate and return a U

URLs could be used with a generalized protocol. The client would specify the URL scheme, port and an arbitrary name and the server would generate and return a URL, or an error if it doesn't support the requested scheme (servers could support a very limited set of schemes and ports, perhaps just one). Raw socket endpoints would use "tcp://host:port" and "udp://host:port". Servers that provide raw sockets would probably want to create a subdomain for each endpoint to avoid port contention. Since the server knows the URL scheme, it can transparently do caching/filtering/mangling for particular protocols. Making a request with the "http" scheme would be functionally equivalent to your reverse HTTP. This is just off the top of my head and there are surely better approaches but the point is that it's quite doable and probably as simple or simpler than something at the HTTP layer. HTTP's "richness" is also what makes it a pain in the ass. It's a megalomaniacal protocol designed for a very specific purpose and when you are forced to use it for any other purpose, you have to carry a lot of baggage, and the baggage is full of rocks. This gateway service is nearly always going to be used to create some sort of ad-hoc messaging endpoint, rather than a proper web server with web pages, so why force tunneling over TWO layers of HTTP while precluding the use of any existing wire-level level protocols? It's time we buried the "use HTTP for everything" meme. We already have an everything protocol called TCP and if there's going to be a layer after that, it will be a carefully designed, flexible messaging protocol like AMQP. HTTP adds negative value as a general purpose transport and it's not even that great for serving web sites.