IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 18:44 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 98C9D3A6CC5 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:44:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.296
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, 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 72NxH29q-9ZN for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:44:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1CC3A6C64 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oB1IjPwA028236 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:45:25 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1291229125; bh=DqjzJw5CpTOR83OEa322AMltGNU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VU2UrE76bOmLguyLnjHCcBtRUs8GauLEMzASq/rhdFIFMyQkQjtB25bL7t7V1qxja bZmEcmIm047YhQVmXJSBQ==
Received: from gxk10 (gxk10.prod.google.com [10.202.11.10]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oB1IiSKX020387 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:45:23 -0800
Received: by gxk10 with SMTP id 10so4047202gxk.12 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:45:23 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zxg0nCi8QSq0Icva+9TjwjudjrrXWDzZOQq6MCxkTWk=; b=a8pUr7Vf+rVvXTGYP8MKgH3brac0RtzP0plwEEKw5JQ4tG+1AU4uwGIOPM64mQuajo QeXbsmpB2xJaStMZ3GVw==
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:content-transfer-encoding; b=j7ksYggB2hz3e0w9ZRawaKhBp/6yYtz4Hv5WUdsEJVb2IF10+MgbTqojvJYi/RXqIp MRFpO9W/KaMPUF/FTrMA==
Received: by 10.150.192.12 with SMTP id p12mr13754302ybf.263.1291229059817; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:44:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.217.12 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:43:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20101201183540.GF19021@1wt.eu>
References: <AANLkTik0wR-Oag5YJJDmdiSy67WW6TMaHmqWEo4o5kGW@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimwEtKrJm5KxTYZ4wrtONBYDTGjE5LF7__AHBEU@mail.gmail.com> <20101201183540.GF19021@1wt.eu>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:43:59 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=r-is4ZqJc6itsaBkyrmW746xXj8OV78M_Qbi3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 18:44:15 -0000

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 09:00:35AM -0800, Adam Barth wrote:
> > IMHO, we should adopt the CONNECT handshake first and discuss the
> > details of what Host header to send second.
>
> I agree that this work should be incremental. The difficulty as we're
> working today is that you presented a replacement proposal. It is very
> hard to agree on multiple changes at once.
>
> If we want to progress, we should consider replacing just the GET+Upgrade
> with a CONNECT and not change anything else (meaning we keep the host and
> Hello framess). Only then we can study what else can be done.

AFAIK, the Hello frames do not appear in any draft and only in Greg's
proposal.  Personally, I am not sure what exactly they buy us and I
don't know if we want to pay the extra round trip for them.

So, if we really want this to be incremental, it would be a change
from Ian's last draft.

As I understand it, these are the components of Adam's latest proposal:
 1) use CONNECT instead of GET+Upgrade
 2) use a fixed, bogus host header and mask the real headers
 3) mask all payload data
 4) encode the headers as JSON

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email