Re: [hybi] Masking only Payload/Extension Data

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Wed, 09 March 2011 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@intalio.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 654933A6969 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:32:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.124
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 qe7fDQ8XuVDv for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 943623A69FD for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so1036818vxg.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:33:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.69.46 with SMTP id b14mr4712976vdu.103.1299702821896; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Sender: gregw@intalio.com
Received: by 10.52.169.39 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:33:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinau4g1pB_ccJ31u7WRi5npYtHvXE5YRn5uTbeV@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D77B885.5050109@callenish.com> <OF36FEDDC6.06951577-ON8825784E.0062343E-8825784E.0066AC27@playstation.sony.com> <AANLkTinau4g1pB_ccJ31u7WRi5npYtHvXE5YRn5uTbeV@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:33:41 +1100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vj1nQFicB11WZ3UGXQnhu7qGquc
Message-ID: <AANLkTikB4YeaYiF_NVGn61c1YxpNWbmEWQZu1WcN+=Jf@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Yutaka_Takeda@playstation.sony.com
Subject: Re: [hybi] Masking only Payload/Extension Data
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: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:32:27 -0000

I'm +1 for using a reserved bit to indicate masking, but not if that
clouds any consensus for in frame masking.

Besides, the way the protocol is developing, we are allocated data
space for control codes, for masks etc. then most extensions will be
free to put bits there.

For me, the only reason to use reserve bits instead of payload bits,
is that it is much much simpler for the framing layer to interpret
those bits.  ie you couldn't have a masking bit inside a masked
payload.

So I think masking is a perfect exemplar for the use of a reserve bit.
 If it can't get over the line, then I doubt any usage can.

cheers