Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13.txt

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

On 9 September 2011 02:14, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 9/8/11 9:06 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>> OLD: "All frames sent from the server to the client are not masked."
>> NEW: "Frames sent from the server to the client MAY be masked."
>>
>> OLD: "All frames sent from the client to the server are masked to avoid ..."
>> NEW: "Frames sent from the client to the server SHOULD be to avoid ..."
>>
>> NEW: "Servers MUST NOT reject un-masked frames, unless masking is required by local policy."
>
> Personally (not as your Area Director), that's fine with me.
>
> As your Area Director, I'd appreciate feedback from WG participants so
> that we can reach closure on this issue.

I believe that from a protocol view point, having masking be optional
in either direction makes sense, with the setting of the masking bit
being just a matter of policy.

However, from a procedural point of view, we fought long and hard to
get to MUST be masked C->S and MUST NOT be masked S->C, so unless
consensus suddenly materialises otherwise,  I can live with those
fixed policies in the spec.

I do like Richards phrase that we will then just have a  defacto "WS
compliant" bit ,that is set to 1 for clients and 0 for servers to
indicate compliance.

cheers