Re: [hybi] It's time to ship

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

2011/1/10 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <[e-mail]>:
>>  - it has not yet been stated whether only the payload or also the framing
>>    should be masked. Your proposal masks both, which means that it
>> definitely
>>    blocks any possibility of performing multiplexing later. There does not
>>    appear to have been a consensus in this area yet.
>>
>
> I'm not sure why this would block the possibility of multiplexing. I would
> agree that would be a problem if it were the case. However, a number of the
> early proposals for multiplexing included something like a stream-id in the
> frame. This could still be present. Though it would be masked, so would the
> length and other things that a meaningful intermediary would care about, so
> assuming the intermediary was capable of un-masking, is this an issue?

I don't think it makes multiplexing impossible - just more difficult,
more complex and more invasive.

Multiplexing can no longer be just a channel label associated with
each frame in a stream, because a frame stream will only be meaningful
in the context of keys exchanged by a client and a server.
Thus the key exchange will no longer be able to be end to end, and the
multiplexer will need to be then end point of each connection from a
client, so that it can initiate a new shared connection with a server
with a new and different stream key applied to it. You then have to
avoid the  situation where the multiplexer has accepted a WS
connection that the server does not want to accept - argh!

all this for no actual benefit???