Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13.txt

["Richard L. Barnes" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry if I'm missing something (I missed the beginning of the thread), but are there people out there who actually *want* masking from the server to the client?  The work by abarth, ekr, et al. showed a roughly 40% performance hit due to masking under some circumstances -- presumably adding s2c masking would degrade performance even further.

--Richard  


On Sep 7, 2011, at 3:38 AM, Len Holgate wrote:

>> 	If we allow the server to mask frames, clients need to 
>> implement logic for unmasking to prepare for them. As we 
>> don't know any important use-case of server-to-client 
>> masking, I think we should just forbid it.
>> 	OLD: All frames sent from the server to the client are 
>> not masked.
>> 	NEW: All frames sent from the server to the client MUST 
>> NOT be masked.
>> 
>> 	Let's also change
>> 	OLD: All frames sent from the client to the server are 
>> masked to avoid ...
>> 	NEW: All frames sent from the client to the server MUST 
>> be masked to avoid ...
> 
> That sounds good; well better than it being vague anyway. 
> 
> Now, of course, the masking bit in the header is pretty much redundant... 
> 
> Equally good would be:
> 
> OLD: All frames sent from the server to the client are not masked.
> NEW: All frames sent from the server to the client CAN be masked but there's
> no technical or security reason for them to be and so in most cases they
> SHOULD NOT be masked.
> 
> Clients already have the code to mask/unmask, the logic isnt that complex...
> 
> Len
> http://www.serverframework.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi