Re: [hybi] hybi 10 ---- server to client masking

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 20 July 2011 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF1921F8752 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s1GDTFxugw0C for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE69F21F873A for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so67401qwc.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.105.95 with SMTP id s31mr6676991qco.228.1311157801862; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.185.195 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001f01cc46c5$c51c4e50$4f54eaf0$@noemax.com>
References: <CAHvyngtgP8dtYvAUa_4zn+Jftx44vqsi0=xu8tUqOS3AawGkdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmp_qGdaLFpyPXCAKQuqyS2myBhX=JcbJQB-CEO59A5eA@mail.gmail.com> <001f01cc46c5$c51c4e50$4f54eaf0$@noemax.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:30:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=apC+zZFUJopfjvCtWSf6-r9X3B8+AumSPm0NFzB8Y7Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, "Andy W. Song" <wsongcn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] hybi 10 ---- server to client masking
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:30:03 -0000

2011/7/20 Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com>om>:
> I don't think you are correct. As far as I understand the discussions in the group over masking, the server to client masking is optional (server MAY MASK). Otherwise we would not need a masking flag in the frame header since client-to-server frames would always be masked and server-to-client frames would never be masked.

Does the spec state somewhere that the client MUST be ready to receive
masked frames from the server? or is it just an interpretation due the
existence of such masking flag?

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>