Re: [hybi] Can Websockets be used peer to peer? Was Straw Poll: is Upgrade...?

Brodie Thiesfield <brodie@jellycan.com> Mon, 10 January 2011 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <brofield@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF3E3A6866 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:00:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B-x0yHdLwpbV for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4363A6862 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so20417466qyj.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:02:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=a3Ly9wHChUGzObZDYgMue8XHfG2Wu9rjpP3lgmqcza8=; b=MiwGn7O5Rd6KGTD32oTskOShEskdhninvzAe5vk+jnxq9TS5mrSORE3p1pca79Ymla 5PJe1kGMZh+rBfHtnvXWQ+FcAfCdmahrImdJ+b1NSUuc9xBWxyQbcgCu3shUkhE+DkTm jXxdpMtWOsb4U0jcWL9fjeYF7Aw7SlY8ROErs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=JzaTxS80CH3P1M5Xsa/5dy41fhljDBQSSXJP6+OCdr1ruxvBgWnIeA97cJYiHe3hqn qxjeNR4uw9HuM+YaTNnUfaDYW1KBpqqa5t5jTCXTvDISfHq5kZ2wJ3tZfvsbVBb+tsOA CY2AL0+0od7psC3S/XstbxO0ljW9JlpdNBq+w=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.212.6 with SMTP id gq6mr24607470qcb.150.1294621353943; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Sender: brofield@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.84.66 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:02:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D26DE2D.5040901@ericsson.com>
References: <4D26605B.1090409@callenish.com> <AANLkTikrsO8ePsjhgRNhM5n1gxMEYbjDa8DhCpqajtun@mail.gmail.com> <4D26DE2D.5040901@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:02:33 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: g86CffozRLpk_Ny_tM56p9GQDLQ
Message-ID: <AANLkTinpkbJU_mYLq3O8d9W58pBKEi6=K9fV=4C=5ODv@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brodie Thiesfield <brodie@jellycan.com>
To: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Can Websockets be used peer to peer? Was Straw Poll: is Upgrade...?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:00:25 -0000

I understand that this can be addressed later, however supporting peer
to peer in the protocol appears to only require a client to also
support the optional masking of the server responses.

In the case of a browser acting as the server, it will need to
implement the server side of things like handshake and unmasking
client messages. However, given that it is really also a client (with
the same unknown intermediataries, etc), I assume that it would be
desirable to have the same security protections as a simple client,
and so it would also want to send messages using masking.

As long as simple clients can also receive messages from a server with
masking enabled, then there appears to be no reason that peer to peer
wouldn't work with the same security guarantees (for the protocol)
that client->server does.

i.e.
client -> server = masked
server -> client = cleartext | masked

How the server notifies the client that it is going to send masked
responses remains unspecified.

Regards,
Brodie


On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Salvatore Loreto
<salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 1/7/11 2:23 AM, John Tamplin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com> wrote:
>>
>> So far it appears that Greg, Brodie, Jerod, and I favour including
>> peer-to-peer design considerations in the spec. I am not sure, but it sounds
>> like John considers it out of scope and Scott considers it in scope. What
>> about the rest of you?
>
> I am not opposed to it exactly, but given how long everything has taken I am
> keen to keep the base protocol minimal so we can actually get something out
> the door.
>
> I agree with John,
> lets keep the base protocol minimal at moment.
> Once we have reached consensus on the minimal base protocol we can
> start to add other stuff on top of the minimal base.
>
> If there is consensus in doing something in the future we can track it in
> the issue tracker
> so we won't forget.
>
>
> cheers
> /Sal
>
> --
> Salvatore Loreto
> www.sloreto.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>