IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] RFC6455 clarification: when received close code of 1005, 1006, 1015

"Arman Djusupov" <arman@noemax.com> Wed, 09 May 2012 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <arman@noemax.com>
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 297BD21F85BE for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 02:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ki6nYmo39Te6 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 02:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.noemax.com (mail.noemax.com [64.34.201.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C25121F85BD for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2012 02:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; t=1336554963; x=1337159763; s=m1024; d=noemax.com; c=relaxed/relaxed; v=1; bh=WsrzRXCAB46T5FY0IUAM1CxK0i4=; h=From:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References; b=FU1KAqKucNImn4Y48SQmRoudZvwzMnlxVgjE/GSr7BJn9wiiSGnQfOENHiKcySzm6wamUm2EPCxX+c9eFSBxn8577dJ7XMaWIptHMJ5WCGLVmh8fZPB+5xO6lW8mWh0FANNBui2M8qLfpZOCUpE1UWUVg9+RVX93eKAbm0zIjaM=
Received: from mail.noemax.com by mail.noemax.com (IceWarp 10.4.0) with ASMTP (SSL) id TOZ39502; Wed, 09 May 2012 12:16:02 +0300
From: Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com>
To: 'Takeshi Yoshino' <tyoshino@google.com>, hybi@ietf.org
References: <CAH9hSJbQ7dcu4N=Yf7TyFzJ0FhfVRehEMtnFx3Qvv_W0T5Cs+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH9hSJbQ7dcu4N=Yf7TyFzJ0FhfVRehEMtnFx3Qvv_W0T5Cs+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 12:15:50 +0300
Message-ID: <000401cd2dc4$581455a0$083d00e0$@noemax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01CD2DDD.7D629F10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHUE29/d9SwNWfHKAsmTPfvXQs8RJazYKtw
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [hybi] RFC6455 clarification: when received close code of 1005, 1006, 1015
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, 09 May 2012 09:16:06 -0000

Yes. The connection is getting closed anyway, such an event only requires to
be logged and somehow reported to the application. The handling that you
suggested would do fine. 

 

A more "kind" alternative would be to send a close frame with 1002 "Protocol
Error" so that the remote side would be able to realize that there is
something wrong with their implementation, provided of course that they log
close frame codes.

 

With best regards,

Arman

 

 

From: hybi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hybi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Takeshi Yoshino
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:12 AM
To: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: [hybi] RFC6455 clarification: when received close code of 1005,
1006, 1015

 

Hi,

 

Endpoints MUST NOT send a close frame with close code of 1005, 1006 or 1015.

 

What should we do when received such a frame from a broken endpoint? It
seems there's no text specifying this.

 

I think this should be taken as protocol error. The endpoint received such a
bad close frame should _Fail the WebSocket Connection_ and invoke onclose()
with code=1006 and wasClean=false.

 

Thoughts?


Takeshi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email