IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Client offers invalid WS protocols, what must the server do? 101???

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Wed, 31 August 2011 19:25 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 63CC421F8F5F for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 arV5z+Y576pF for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3CF21F8F46 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.5]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p7VJR4pb007717 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:27:04 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1314818824; bh=PStP/iLzKRHF1imtHROhRYtD1Tg=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=jSahfzAo6YSGggSY7K1PVG0X/9/GIlTlLP9ImUnX6tWwQ9WWZaxA6lj8LoD62A5Qu RElRsLnkzMbHaA1lzKUkw==
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=uvI9A9RuC66dLde1yblGvG5AFg+rDnluAEYCvHw/PCG5GCpo3P/2B2bWdsksnfca8 ZJUNDz+G59NAfmNFuMa4g==
Received: from qwj9 (qwj9.prod.google.com [10.241.195.73]) by hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p7VJO1ut030914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:27:03 -0700
Received: by qwj9 with SMTP id 9so839107qwj.21 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:27:02 -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=uP3Cfkeyq/uoR/zLbguBmICva5lfjPGUKK8N3Nn2zpU=; b=hrnWEK/SXTj5kljVI/bFayw1w1JAjODD6W1cRAjTDPKEvsfDdjphUtYgfXb9EPbTvD 4UKgrJUlWfudwdNuGaUQ==
Received: by 10.229.29.9 with SMTP id o9mr625600qcc.265.1314818822622; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.29.9 with SMTP id o9mr625588qcc.265.1314818822323; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.138.137 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmi3et2==qziAg1toWHjkiBAUrLfQDPmEKuU+Jx_D6ZTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkC9dLOnLfSQApE9OjoSV1RXT7cTumZ6+yCR1tWo_cvmw@mail.gmail.com> <4E5CBEA0.2080605@isode.com> <CALiegfn3dPyZMR3ZZ3CtwOeAmC4sxd0=kos4Z82B2qeh_aZASQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E5CC6A7.7030304@isode.com> <CALiegfnc-YRPZZvgJjmvtafKnkJB7rXJ9KcPDKL-ceeAdwGEGQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E5CC8B8.7090702@isode.com> <CALiegfmSs-FhS5AuJHWFhGdbxS4pLSHA1Kk2y_P5GwwG_YneyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABLsOLCBSnW+R9vr=RbRosTo55tv-_gG9yLdoj5AqW4rU6rcPQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E5D04F8.30801@isode.com> <4E5E5EDA.6000606@gmail.com> <4E5E79C4.2080100@callenish.com> <CAMaigVkreB5P2ieXJxZbQ3yPZs0kwmJmqvA0t0jHMBA40BjF-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmi3et2==qziAg1toWHjkiBAUrLfQDPmEKuU+Jx_D6ZTQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:26:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CABLsOLC0m-NpG6L-95rju3vLinMa3d8b3pncoM53fkoN+xs3Fg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016364274c0d93dbf04abd21cba"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Client offers invalid WS protocols, what must the server do? 101???
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, 31 Aug 2011 19:25:40 -0000

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2011/8/31 Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com>:
> > If a client sends a protocol header, I don't see why it can't indicate
> ALL
> > protocols it supports for this connection. If the server supports none of
> > those protocols, and if neither client nor server are part of a single
> web
> > application (so there is no implicit custom protocol they could both
> > understand), I don't see how a sucessful connection could be established.
>
> Of course. Say the opposite means allowing ugly/annoying pseudo
> negotiations.


Personally, I see little value at this point for subprotocols.  They
basically represent an agreement between the application end points for a
protocol to run on top of WS.  Since the app developer owns both endpoints,
they can already use whatever protocol they like.  It is a convenient place
to send selection between multiple protocols out-of-band, but no more.

Maybe in the future there are standard subprotocols, and you could have some
off-the-shelf product to offload those subprotocols, but initially there
seems to be little value so I don' t think we need to go overboard imagining
things that would be useful with only limited experience with WS itself.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email