IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.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 17BB43A69C5 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:17:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.578, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 nXAL5cchn--7 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:17:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3770A3A6C17 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:17:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.13]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oB1HIe50025777 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:18:40 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1291223920; bh=2vUlUXpHEz/VxRATNZ2c0I3vDkI=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=pYNE0RWhIW9/paUgvmfHpuJjf/BZMVinyz/UgHZMde6ByRdiUrxHiPbu7Kg6hBXn1 YJNpMvk/Z55tkgcgH0Dvg==
Received: from gwj18 (gwj18.prod.google.com [10.200.10.18]) by hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oB1HIcFn025222 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:18:38 -0800
Received: by gwj18 with SMTP id 18so1736370gwj.25 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:18:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=BL2TL4UcbDX9wjzrpIGMG5C95fGqnQwbZseX5G2YOAs=; b=V06lQ2uSKBJ2AwvDEXwCgi0FKbdfPM81hbc5+gQcHJvAqiAtWz+6pKUA3Os+kfRuzF gk9tbK8kos1wBN9qhwkg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=HpVqHMF6MQSEAfa3+7pATZy2HkEz7BQjfgH0uipzt9U6dM+I2zHJd5haaxUdxNVesm T6fTjoQJAxcpUNw3o2BQ==
Received: by 10.150.192.12 with SMTP id p12mr13606554ybf.263.1291223916694; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:18:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.217.12 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:18:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTaZr2GS23rXj8F-KESDCwciTR_8KT5n=3p-hn@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik0wR-Oag5YJJDmdiSy67WW6TMaHmqWEo4o5kGW@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimwEtKrJm5KxTYZ4wrtONBYDTGjE5LF7__AHBEU@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinTaZr2GS23rXj8F-KESDCwciTR_8KT5n=3p-hn@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:18:16 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikWRtcTpX7a6zX-1CmQy2-qu+8XBefve5GpFrn8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd6b11ce14bbd04965c7efb"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes
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, 01 Dec 2010 17:17:28 -0000

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:

> On 1 December 2010 18:00, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> wrote:
> > IMHO, we should adopt the CONNECT handshake first and discuss the
> > details of what Host header to send second.
>
> +1
>
> What concerns there are about CONNECT are probably best evaluated with
> working code, test deployments and without the distraction of the
> debate about bogus host headers.
>

I do have working code for Adam's first proposed handshake at the
websocket-draft-eval project, and it could easily be updated to a more
recent version if anyone wanted to test another implementation against it.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email