Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.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 D45B921F8F0E for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nDoY+ZT6Qi1A for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D92321F8ED0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.14]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p86LiUlA024910 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:44:30 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1315345470; bh=o4caqF6kTlXwXCAidkoIIpYsZWU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=F9H+NPFv+Ug+xab5BX6q1Nanz3xtF9Ppph/B8u0aGQcOBqAjdsynRcZi5kLBDhefc OnBee+PVQ6QV+v4vHo/9w==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=H5qgYZQqjAZoax8f/pXzwdWvDtuYKQQSBAl27eNdlytXU+ylGKyVEFSZwRspTcWu6 C/TjaV7HjvrSb0QTMYy7w==
Received: from gyh3 (gyh3.prod.google.com [10.243.50.195]) by hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p86LhRSC009650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:44:28 -0700
Received: by gyh3 with SMTP id 3so3769303gyh.9 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=btm8Zk7mwD8JKRmEfidsDfIPEPq6Znnb0uQVOihla+g=; b=RzOQA5GsMLdybwogKU1sU0O9v6xhCMQeq+z79m/kJd3RxFOzZbfAnBNYS5HY00FmgO oUw0b543YCIR778GBmKg==
Received: by 10.151.21.9 with SMTP id y9mr4083083ybi.344.1315345468322; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.21.9 with SMTP id y9mr4083074ybi.344.1315345468160; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.49.7 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6D173AD1-5BB7-4F35-BE93-9E62E600DB60@bbn.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5355F3EF-DD59-4D3C-9578-84043A3B8E90@gbiv.com> <4E620772.9090900@gmx.de> <4E6228F9.2030108@gmx.de> <20110903194323.GA19164@1wt.eu> <C673E88C-D969-427E-B032-8695C7952253@bbn.com> <4E668B2C.4050707@cs.tcd.ie> <6D173AD1-5BB7-4F35-BE93-9E62E600DB60@bbn.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:44:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CABLsOLBQcc0S-JjG2Gg3HW+hqingUot0F8PMEAACWZLLTH2dig@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd4b2d662fb6604ac4cbb45
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: iesg@iesg.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:42:44 -0000

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:

> > I personally think the masking thing is pretty ugly. But I
> > have to (reluctantly) admit I think it does what its
> > supposed to do. At this stage I think it comes down to
> > either doing the masking or not using port 80.
>
> I'm sort of of the same feeling.  I don't disagree that masking solves the
> problem it sets out to.  The question is whether there are other ways to
> solve the problem that are simpler, with fewer side effects.
>

Please, let's not reopen months of discussion about exactly that topic.
 Many alternatives were proposed, and XOR masking was the only thing that we
could get consensus on as reasonably acceptable to everyone.

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