Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mjs@apple.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 5D3D93A67A8 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:50:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 re6IRrfO3JbH for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164F93A6783 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639A7C1148CE for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:51:56 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 1180711d-b7b82ae0000060a0-c5-4cf6c37cc53a
Received: from gertie.apple.com (gertie.apple.com [17.151.62.15]) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 7A.7B.24736.C73C6FC4; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:51:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_8wefTorbQ8Ed1mk6Dvqnug)"
Received: from [17.73.146.44] by gertie.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0LCR0093YREFNQ70@gertie.apple.com> for hybi@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:51:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <AANLkTing3grEETt4s2CVSu4BtHPXOA8_MAm=sBQpYaJx@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:51:49 -0800
Message-id: <5CB83789-EC99-4DF1-B573-5683B153E9D9@apple.com>
References: <AANLkTik0wR-Oag5YJJDmdiSy67WW6TMaHmqWEo4o5kGW@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimwEtKrJm5KxTYZ4wrtONBYDTGjE5LF7__AHBEU@mail.gmail.com> <20101201183540.GF19021@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=r-is4ZqJc6itsaBkyrmW746xXj8OV78M_Qbi3@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimtjYUOidZcxkSEtaUniJC6m8ujzFa69DMQVhZH@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimQ3bm5-2tN0QEt=qX4CR_XFpcLXF7Auz2ijo0Z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTing3grEETt4s2CVSu4BtHPXOA8_MAm=sBQpYaJx@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
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 21:50:43 -0000

On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> On 1 December 2010 20:10, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> I agree the Hello frames are useful in this case.  However, how often
>> is this case present, and is getting a WebSocket-layer timeout rather
>> than app-layer (which in most cases will have to be present anyway)
>> worth the price for all the other cases?  I don't have any numbers for
>> it (do you?), but my gut feeling is it is low.
> 
> I agree that Hellos may be less useful with CONNECT.  But we have to
> do something about the current handshakes unframed bytes and space
> encoded nonces.  If we leave the unframed bytes as they are with
> CONNECT, then we will probably still have the identified issue of an
> intermediary that does not forward the bytes and the server hanging
> while it tries to read them.

There is a reasonable subset of Adam & Eric's proposal that includes CONNECT, but omits the bogus host header, JSON headers and payload masking. It would not have unframed bytes or space encoded nonces. 

I think that would be a decent starting point, after which we could evaluate the remaining aspects.

Regards,
Maciej