Re: [hybi] hybi 10 ---- server to client masking

David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dendicott@gmail.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 3D8CC21F8579 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lw0aLZgW8jd7 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF2021F8565 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so349832wwe.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2QSGbAhhtr7anANwKW6uJA7Gw0+2FdUM0jLt+aSS/Kk=; b=ItXtUI8zJ7uxQUOd+L8cFCg+p0wS3+xTEIiMTsmPIIVnSbYr6YZQr4ByFfWHPSrGDQ 6VjPxj1RuAA17TDDSZV1MKAt108rKx6oB79ztIV/BTH+aYY3ntpBuAO/hEUbn+YtLz2/ q6yZ2ODWA4dTQEb3FHn8Q1KjaUSI+K6osNGvc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.79.74 with SMTP id h52mr7557189wee.33.1311185475219; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.39.197 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABLsOLCpJ3F4unr4=fkariV6pKvii9WUsjBmwNsYgEnnkAaAGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHvyngtgP8dtYvAUa_4zn+Jftx44vqsi0=xu8tUqOS3AawGkdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmp_qGdaLFpyPXCAKQuqyS2myBhX=JcbJQB-CEO59A5eA@mail.gmail.com> <001f01cc46c5$c51c4e50$4f54eaf0$@noemax.com> <CABLsOLCpJ3F4unr4=fkariV6pKvii9WUsjBmwNsYgEnnkAaAGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:11:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP992=EU7dG5-eyi7FWpoxL-3Afw4waHFR4b2Kew4AR41T-opg@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd342b67c306e04a8842879
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, "Andy W. Song" <wsongcn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] hybi 10 ---- server to client masking
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, 20 Jul 2011 18:11:18 -0000

So the flag is the truth, and either end must be prepared to process masking
based on the frame's flag?


On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you are correct. As far as I understand the discussions in
>> the group over masking, the server to client masking is optional (server MAY
>> MASK). Otherwise we would not need a masking flag in the frame header since
>> client-to-server frames would always be masked and server-to-client frames
>> would never be masked.
>>
>
> The flag was requested so intermediaries (including packet sniffers) could
> interpret the frame without knowing the context (ie, which direction the
> packet is going or negotiated extensions, etc).
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>